Gun control will do nothing to stop mass shootings.

I too am excited for a challenging yet healthy debate. I also am mostly conservative, yet I am in no way a gun-toting/loving redneck. I just tell it like I see it. We have no way of knowing what the Founding Fathers would have said about this issue in the present day, and it really makes no difference. They clearly believed that the people should be able to defend themselves if threatened, be it from oppressive government or a dangerous society. Indeed, the 2nd amendment to the Constitution clearly states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" (. https://www.law.cornell.edu...). Con mentions in his opening arguments that: "[gun control] goes against the strictest interpretation of the constitution" and he is right. However, him saying this makes it seem as though the Constitution should not be interpreted today as strictly as it was when it was written. It seems to me that the authors of the 2nd amendment predicted that thought process and addressed it when they distinctly said ". .. shall not be infringed. " Con also says that enforced gun control would decrease mass shootings. This has been proven false repeatedly. Evidence compiled by the FBI shows that since the year 1950, rapes among people who carry firearms has dropped 5%, aggravated assaults have dropped 7%, and murder rates have fallen almost 9% (. http://americangunfacts.com...). A Harvard Law department study found that there is in fact a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crimes. Meanwhile, in most European countries where they have implemented several forms of gun-control, there have been considerable rises in homicide rates than in nations that have no forms of gun control implemented. Quote from website: "With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. " Therefore, with my counter-arguments, including quotes and references from two highly credible sources, I have successfully proven that carrying a firearm, as long as the carrier is mentally healthy, can lead to a decrease in rates of mass violence. I argue that gun control is a way of the federal government to limit the power granted to the people. If the population is defenseless, they obviously have no way of defending themselves from an oppressive government--which was the reason the Founders created the 2nd amendment in the first place. This makes the government fully able to manipulate its citizens and make them completely dependent, which sets the foundation for Socialism. According to the Constitution, and definitely by the Declaration of Independence, the people have the right to stand up and rebel against this type of oppression. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. " Now I hope that what I have just stated is not taken too politically. It basically just ties in to what I was saying earlier that the people have and should maintain the right to express themselves. Especially when it abides by the standing Constitution. Also in case there was confusion, I mean an amount of gun-control that involves the government either not allowing to own firearms at all, or gun control that disallows them fro having them in public. I await Con's statements eagerly and I hope there was no confusion with any of my arguments.