Gun control in America

Regulation of firearms is not the same thing as banning them. This nation already has many regulations on firearms at the federal, state and local levels. You won't see people dragging howitzers around behind the family station wagon or parking an Apache Gunship in their driveway. There are regulations on everything from the types of weapons that people can poses, how and where those weapons can be used, specifications to how weapons can be manufactured, to the types of ammunition that is available. Certain types of activities such as 'concealed carry' require special permits. Background checks and waiting periods are enforced at the point of purchase. The list of regulations go on. I am not against reasonable regulation of firearms, as long as such regulations are created and enforced within boundaries of the constitution and body of existing legal precedent, and with attention paid to the intent of the original bill of rights. Modifying the 2nd amendment is a separate debate. The issue you have stated for debate is:"The government should legislate a ban upon all firearms including, but not limited to: handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, and sub-machine guns." This goes well beyond reasonable regulation. The only logical outcome of such a ban would be confiscation en masse which would directly infringe upon right guaranteed in the 2nd amendment. Since you have not produced any evidence, or even reasons that you believe, that such a ban is worth of support, I will attack a couple of the more commonly used arguments employed by firearms ban supporters. Claim #1 - Banning firearms will reduce violent crimes, namely murder. My Response - There is no evidence for the preposterous claim that disarming ordinary, law abiding, citizens reduces the risk of violent crime. This study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, details in 43 riveting pages the baselessness of this argument. You can read it here: http://www.law.harvard.edu... If this isn't enough for you, look at this case study from the National Center for Policy Analysis. It contrasts crime statistics for Australia directly following their ban on firearms and compares it to the crime statistics for the United States in the corresponding time period. http://www.ncpa.org... There are plenty more studies like these if you want to do a little more research. Claim #2 " Banning all firearms will choke the supply of weapons and ammunition available to criminals. (This claim is related to the first one but separate.) My Response " Well lets check in on Britain to see how hard it is to get a firearm illegally in there. After all it has been more than a decade since Parliament passed the firearms act of 1998. With its outright ban and draconian enforcement measures, surely the supply of illegally obtained weapons must be constrained to near exhaustion there. http://www.theguardian.com... Apparently not. The following article shows that the UK has, in fact, suffered a staggering 89% increase in gun related violence over the decade after it disarmed its citizens. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... They must not be running out of bullets either. I think I can rest my case against banning all firearms as proposed in your opening remarks. It can be clearly seen that such a measure is not only unwarranted, contrary to the good of the public, and harmful to society at large, but is also very dangerous and irresponsible. If you want to attack the problem of violent crime you should go after its root causes, and not encumber the collective security if your neighbors. Your comparison of 18th century firearms to modern firearms is irrelevant to this debate. On the other hand take a look at what Pizaro was able to do at Cajamarca with only 12 15th Century firearms against an unarmed Inca public. https://en.wikipedia.org... More of a slaughter than a battle really, wouldn't you say? The point is that atrocity can happen when armed. bad people encounter unarmed populations, no matter how sophisticated or crude their firearms may be. I would wager that Pizaro would have thought twice if there were a few hundred javelin toting Inca Guards standing around. I will await the 3rd round to see if you can put forward any relevant evidence to support a ban of firearms.