Gun control legislation and deterring crime

There are numerous issues I have with my opponent's argument and I will use this round to share them as well as further explain how gun control legislation deters crime. First off, in my first round argument I used an example of gun legislation deterring crime in the form of rocket launchers being illegal. My opponent responded to that example saying "This statement is irrelevant because the current legislation at hand is not based on rocket launchers, it is based specifically on assault rifles, and other various provisions that infringe the right to even obtain any firearm.". Meanwhile, the topic of this debate is "Gun control legislation and deterring crime", at no point in time did he specify a specific gun control legislation that we were discussing. Being that said, my rocket launcher example makes perfect sense when discussing "Gun control legislation" as a whole. Secondly, his comment on my argument "contradicting" itself when I stated that gun control legislation in the form of banning assault rifles would significantly reduce the amount of these lethal weapons, but it would not completely fix the problem, makes no sense. Obviously, people will always be able to get what they want in some form or fashion, but banning assault rifles will make it significantly more difficult and dangerous to obtain an assault rifle. This was the only point I was making and it clearly doesn't "contradict" itself. My opponent then moved to refute my point that there isn't a logical reason for owning an assault rifle claiming that "Owning an assault rifle for recreational purposes such as target shooting like many law abiding Americans do is a very acceptable and logical reason to obtain an assault rifle." While in some fashion this does make sense, the fact that people need to own these dangerous weapons in order to shoot targets with them is ridiculous. Gun ranges could have specific licenses allowing them to keep assault rifles in stock for customers to use on a gun range, simple solution. The simple fact is that the tiny amount of benefits that come from owning an assault rifle don't come close to outweighing the negative aspects that these guns being sold over the counter bring to society. Moving on, my opponent cites the 2nd Amendment to the constitution which 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". The problem with using this Amendment as a reason to maintain the legality of assault rifles is that the framers of our Constitution who only had access to single shot muskets had no way of knowing what technology would be available to United States citizens in today's world. These new technologies are "challenging our Constitutional categories in really dramatic ways," says George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen. "And what's so striking is that none of the existing amendments give clear answers to the most basic questions we're having today." Rosen's new book "Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change" details how technological changes that were unimaginable at the time of the Founding Fathers are challenging today's lawmakers. The clear truth is that while the Constitution is the backbone of our Country's laws, it requires stretching to compensate for a changing society. My opponent clearly makes my point when he says " The amendment does not state what so ever a specific firearm that is to be obtained or not.". Automatic assault rifles and other dangerous weapons (such as rocket launchers) are outlawed in today's society for the same reasons that I am arguing regular assault rifles should be outlawed, they are unnecessary for the average citizen and are extremely dangerous. And now to my last argument, my opponent is blatantly ignorant to the economical problems the United States' education system is going through. He claims " I for one opposed to my adversary find that placing guards at our schools is a very possible goal to reach... money can go towards having a few officers from police departments patrolling and guarding the schools" Once again I will say, this idea sounds perfect. However, the amount of money it would cost to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy. President Obama has recently enacted a heavily scrutinized plan that will "provide $25 billion to prevent layoffs and support hundreds of thousands of teacher and other education jobs." The amount of taxpayer dollars that this new plan will require is substantial to say the least, and any additional money added to the education budged unfortunately is unrealistic at this time. A Cleveland State University Economics professor claims that "having enough officers to fully protect schools would cost $23 billion", which is "half of what the federal government spends on K-12 education". Imagine that, wiping out half of the United States' education budget to fulfill what my opponent claims is "a very possible goal to reach", because we simply don't have enough money to add additional funds to our education budget. On top of this issue, even if we were to pay the bill and make our schools 100% secure, a shooter could simply move to targets such as movie theaters (which we have recently seen), or shopping malls. Unfortunately, we cannot have armed guards all over our Country, even though it is the ideal scenario from a security stand point. Simply put, there is no sure-fire solution to our nation's security problem that isn't unrealistic economically. Outlawing these unnecessary weapons from society would not solve our problem 100%, but it would undoubtedly lead us in the right direction. Sources: http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.newsnet5.com... http://www.npr.org...