Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting

Seeing that there is no way to edit my resolution or title and that I have now clarified the meaning of the word "necessary" and "necessity" in its context multiple times to multiple people (including my opponent), my opponent is going to have to accept that the fact that I am not going to debate if gun control is a necessity for basic human existence. As far as I know, those are only water, food, and oxygen. Therefore the debate should stick to what the resolution means, which I have clarified. Hopefully we can now solely debate the real issue. My opponent's only proposed alternative to gun control is education about gun violence, not necessarily gun safety but the violence itself. He conceded he has no evidence of its effectiveness but argues instead "teaching others why gun violence is bad and what happens to offenders, that less people are going to commit such things." In my opinion I think it is common sense and well known that gun violence is "bad". I think it is also safe to assume that people who commit or who are looking to commit gun crimes are well aware that there are consequences. My opponent claims "The concept behind mass shootings is that it ends life which is why it's bad, so by that logic if banning handguns saved more lives, then why wouldn't you ban handguns. " This is misguided. The concept behind mass shootings is that masses of people are shot in a short period of time. Assault rifles with high capacity magazines enable these type of shootings far more than handguns do and my previous article showed they are the weapon of choice far more often than handguns are for these specific crimes. The assault rifle ban is intended to combat the specific problem of mass shootings not prevent all "ends of life". Proposed universal background check systems, closing of purchase loopholes, etc, would be policies that would better address the handgun problem realistically without stripping Americans of their rights by ensuring only responsible citizens are able to legally purchase guns. As said before, a ban on all handguns is not realistic at all. I cited a poll in my opponent's article (that shows 59% public support for an assault rifles ban, a clear majority) not to prove that it is necessarily the right opinion but to show that it's clearly a reasonable proposal to discuss. Polls do not even exist for a handgun ban in the U.S. It is an utterly pointless policy to pursue. Furthermore, our constitutional rights are absolutely vital to our country's function and survival. But, the 2nd Amendment enjoys a protection and immunity from any sort of regulation or review that no other constitutional right enjoys. My problem lies in that people are dying because of this extra protection and immunity not because of the right itself. I am not debating whether or not rights are worth dying for. Countless soldiers throughout U.S. history have admirably fought and given their lives to protect our rights. And that is an admirable and voluntary sacrifice they make, but when civilians, kindergartners, and schoolteachers are dying because we refuse to assess the boundaries of this particular right when we do with all others, it is unacceptable.