Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting

My opponent starts off by saying that the resolution was clear given the context, when it was not at all. Necessary has a very strict and clear meaning, and using necessary to convey passion in a website for debate is ridiculous. It may work in some literary website, but in a debate website how did my opponent not know to type what he meant to say. Then pro says that I"m arguing wording, well yes wording does have a part to do with resolutions, that"s why things are commonly defined. Then pro accuses me of going around picking easy debates, which is not what I"m doing at all just because I think that words should convey what someone is saying, not what they are not saying. He clarified his point after the debate had started, and I have gone along with it as a false debate, but want the voters to judge based on whether or not pro proved the resolution, "Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting". To the false debate My opponent makes the point that the people are who see these mass shootings as manly, are out of luck of getting treatment and will never change. First off, they don"t see every type of gun violence as being manly and I thought it was pretty clear when I said it. What I meant is that when they someone stepping over them, they will see someone that uses gun violence as manly, but for example if they go to a bar to kill people for their sexuallity, they won"t They think violence is the answer to conflicts so they take it. As Denzel Curry was saying "Don't need a gun to get respect up on the street". What my opponent is essentially saying is that if someone thinks, for example back then, that a duel is a manly thing to do for a lady, then they find it manly if some cowboy shoots five children, which is not true. Then my opponent has made a point with nothing supporting it saying that if someone thinks this way, that defending something or yourself with a gun is the answer, no such education will change that. But there is no reason to believe that education can"t change someone unless pro is saying gun safety or gun violence has never changed someone. My opponent makes the point that gun violence is multifaceted which is true, but shouldn"t matter considering that handgun violence is the majority of ALL shootings. And pro is right when he says that we can not eliminate all gun violence, but we can greatly reduce it, much more than if we had just ban assault rifles which has proved to not be effective and if pro wanted to be consistent with his stance, he would have to explain why not handguns but just assault rifles. Also this assault rifle ban is not effective in reducing gun violence and all it does is take away rights. Gun makers will have no problem with the ban because even though my opponent wants to close loopholes, it"s impossible to close certain loopholes, for example, "Lawmakers have instead focused on cosmetics. The federal ban applied to all semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and two or more military-style features, like flash suppressors and a bayonet attachment. California law tightens the rules a bit; even one of the military-style features is prohibited. But gun makers have been able to easily skirt these laws. They just sell the same semiautomatic rifle, with the same lethality, but without the military-style features." My opponent also claims that assault rifles are the weapons of choice in mass shootings, "but little wonder then that a 2004 study commissioned by the Department of Justice found that the federal ban didn't lead to any decrease in gun crime or gun deaths. For starters, rifles, assault or otherwise, are rarely used in gun crime. Notwithstanding the two rifles used in San Bernardino (and a few other memorable mass killings), rifles account for only about 3% of criminal gun deaths. Gun crime in the United States, including most mass shootings, is overwhelmingly handgun crime." This is a direct counter to pro"s points. Pro"s link that was provided is a website with hillary clinton all over it, which illustrates its bias, whereas the link I provided is La Times which is rated liberal. My opponent then says that I have provided no evidence that rifles are the weapon of choice when hunting, yes I didn"t provide evidence because I thought it was obvious, but ok since I don"t have evidence let"s say it"s not the main weapon of choice, but it"s a significant part. If my opponent disagrees with this I"d be shocked. Then my opponent says that other rights have restrictions, so should the 2nd amendment. But this is not a good reason why we should put boundaries on the 2nd amendment only because others have them too. I already took her mother jones evidence down. My opponent later on says that she has proved an assault rifle ban to be plausible, although I had just refuted pro"s whole case, and pro says that a handgun policy isn"t plausible, but if the voters look all throughout his previous argument you will see he proved no such thing. Extend all my other arguments. Conclusion: Voters surely should vote con since I have shown that his assault rifle ban policy is ineffective. And the only thing that it will do is remove part of the rights of americans. The country which established that law to protect themselves from tyranny. Also I have proven that pro is inconsistent with his stance on the gun issue, and it makes no logical sense to not pass a handgun policy if it"s the biggest killer. There is no reason why a handgun policy is not possible, the only things pro has given to say an assault rifle ban is possible is a poll which doesn"t really mean anything considering it"s a poll. Things aren"t plausible just because people say so. My opponent talks about how the 2nd amendment shouldn"t be immune because the other amendments aren"t, what about the 13th amendment? Voters on this point should go to con because legal slavery does not exist. Now, I agree not all violence is going to be stopped, but I have proved my point about handguns and mass shootings. Back to the wording of this debate, yes it is true that I have tried to debate what the resolution actually means and says, but voters look at how pro tries to change the situation on me by saying that we shouldn"t let MY wrong interpretation get in the way, but it"s not my interpretation that was wrong, but my opponent"s wording. No one says that gun control is necessary, they say ought, should, or something along the lines of that. Finally, I thank pro for this debate, and all the voters who I hope votes con. Sources- http://www.latimes.com...