"Assault Rifles" (AR-15's Legality)

Honestly, that was the fastest response I have ever seen. "The statement of "gun laws lower gun violence" is extremely debatable, because in places like Chicago, with some of the highest gun violence statistics in the country, also have the highest gun violence rates." - Alright, I know what you mean. However, you aren't looking at the bigger picture. A large amount of guns in Chicago come from cities and counties without strict gun restrictions [1]. For example, of the 50,000 guns the police seized, 60% came from Indiana. So you can't place blame on Chicago's gun laws. "That comma, grammatically, has a meaning. it's not there to make you pause while you speak, it's there to separate the first and second part of the amendment." - Source please. Plus, assuming this was true, what was the point of the first clause? If what you say is true, why does that first clause exist at all? If you take the second amendment my way, it makes sense. It is establishing the right for militias to carry guns. "Finally, the second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload." "Here are some counterexamples that contradict that statement; The Puckle gun, Pepperbox revolvers, The Belton Flintlock (which could fire up to 20 rounds in 5 seconds, meaning it has a higher rate of fire than some guns today), The Giradoni Rifle, with a 22 round magazine that could fire in 30 seconds. In conclusion, no, muskets were not the only guns around when the second amendment was written." - I checked your sources, and neither of them help you much. Your first one has no links or sources, just Crowder's word, and he is heavily biased, so I don't trust him. Your second source was better. It linked to a rifle with around 20 shots. However, according to your source, it needed 1500 hand pumps to get it ready to fire, it was easily broken, it was hard to manufacture, and the soldier needs to be heavily trained to use it. This proves my point even more. The 19th century counterpart of a modern rifle is nowhere near its' effectiveness. So my point about technology still stands. "Just because I can bear a knife instead of a gun, doesn't mean I shouldn't have to." - Why? Can you back this assertion up? As for your point about modern technology, do you really need to be trained in order to shoot people? All you need to know is how to put more bullets in it and what end the bullets come out in. That is why we have so many shootings. Because guns are easily accessed, and you can easily use them. Oh, and source please. You have not created a sufficient response to this argument: The guns and time around when the second amendment was written were different then now. They needed militias then. We have an army now. Most guns were 1 shot muskets. Not now. Now for the big one. Your point about other country's gun control. "With Australia and Canada, their populations are much lower than ours, so their per 100,000 people will be lower almost no matter what. Australia has a population of around 24 million people, Canada has a population of 35 Million, while we have 318.9 million people. It's obvious why their numbers are lower." - Sorry, but this is nonsense. The rate per 100,000 is just that, a rate. Rates are controled for population. What you are thinking of is a count, which isn't controled for population. This is a misunderstanding of how this data was gathered. If you want another example, look at the States. In general, the states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest crime data. And, the 5 states with the highest rates have very loose gun laws, while the 5 states with the lowest gun murder rates have stricter gun laws. Here is a chart you should check out emphasizing my point: https://img.njdc.com... .Also, if we take rates your way, why is New York, a state with tons of people, have a lower gun murder rate then Alaska, which has almost no one in it? ".223 and .308/5.56mm NATO shells are the standard ammunition for an AR-15. They are cleared for deer and other types of hunting. The caliber will not taint the meat, or destroy the animal. It is a clean kill." - Alright, but people can use other guns to hunt. I value people's lives more then the easiness to hunt. I will throw some more fuel on the fire. Suicide. A study done by Harvard University found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had more suicides, and states with fewer guns had fewer suicides. 30,000 people take their lives each year [2]. Passing gun laws can bring that number down. Now onto accidental deaths. Again, more guns equals more accidental deaths, fewer guns equals less accidental deaths. This makes sense, but if we make it harder to get guns, and we require better security, we can save hundreds of lives per year. In fact, a study done by the government found that 31% of accidental shootings could of been prevented if we required loading indicators and child-proof locks [3]. I will now quickly rebut 2 arguments that my opponent might make. First, carrying guns on you won't reduce the risk of you being shot in an assault. It increases it. From one of my debates: A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault then people who don't carry guns [4]. Second: When it is easier for people to carry firearms, it is more likely for criminals to carry guns. 75% of convicted felons carried guns because they fear their victims could be carrying guns. What does this mean? Victims who are not carrying could be at risk of being shot because of others. [5] So to conclude, I would like my opponent to rebut my statements. My case is simple: Passing gun laws reduces crime, suicide, and accidental deaths. Good luck. Sources: [1] http://america.aljazeera.com... [2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [3] http://smartgunlaws.org... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] https://www.ncjrs.gov...