I'm anti Gun Control change my mind

"How dare you! There is so much blood on the hands of the American government and the American people, Your cities are war zones"- A University of Pittsburgh study shows that about 80% of gun crimes are from illegal guns, Meaning that law abiding citizens are not the one's committing these crimes, Https://www. Nationalreview. Com/corner/study-vast-majority-gun-crime-isnt-committed-lawful-gun-owners/ there is no responsibility on the law abiding american people, The only blame should be placed on the criminals committing these acts. "Every day there are mass shootings in your churches synagogues schools theaters and bars"- This is patently false, There are not mass shootings everyday. If we take the standard definition of a mass homicide by the FBI which is applied to mass shootings we have had 12 this year and 11 the year before. This is coming from a database by the LIBERAL think tank mother jones, Https://www. Motherjones. Com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ The whole concept that we have "mass shootings everyday" is completely asinine. In fact, Statistically we aren't even seeing an increase in mass shootings https://www. Cnsnews. Com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/mass-shootings-aren't-rise-neither-are-victims-school-shootings And in fact Gun Homicide has been steadily decreasing while private gun ownership has gone up, Now correlation doesn't equal causation so we can't say that more guns=less crime, But if their was a positive or casual relationship between more privately owned guns and more gun homicides we should see the opposite trend. http://www. Aei. Org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/ "you glut of guns flows out of your nation onto the streets of Canada, Mexco and even into Europe. "- Mexico: In Senate Committee testimony, The BAFTE said the number was likely at worst to be in the "hundreds". As evidenced above, For 2007 and 2008, The average for all firearms seizures was closer to 40 per day (29, 000 guns/730 days), And only a fraction of these came from the USA by any means. Source: Senate Committee Judiciary, William Hoover, Assistant Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, March 17, 2009. As far as Canada and Europe, You're just making a claim you're not providing any empirical evidence, And doesn't this debunk your worldview and further make my argument even more valid? By your own logic gun control is inefficient because according to you even in places with strict gun control like Europe, There is still gun trafficking which allows for a black market. So essentially criminals are still getting guns, Thank you for proving my point. "To do that i have to move to toronto canada to see what american cities might be like if we have better social welfare universal health care and strict gun laws. . You can own a gun in Canada but you must be licensed all handguns must be registered as must all restricted military type rifles. "- You're just making a statement about Canada's gun control laws but why is this important? Just stating their gun control laws without saying how efficient they are isn't an argument and doesn't hold any weight in a debate. But here's the facts, In Canada around 1920, Before there was any form of gun control, Their homicide rate was 7% of the U. S rate. By 1986, And after significant gun control legislation, Canada"s homicide rate was 35% of the U. S. Rate " a significant increase. In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U. S. (963 vs. 475 per 100, 000). One study of Canadian firearm law and homicide rates spanning 34 years "failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates" for three major gun control bills. Sources: Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, At 360 Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008, Caillin Langmann, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, September 30, 2011 "The homicide rate in Toronto to this day is 1. 8 per 100 000 compare that to an american city like Detroit where the homicide rate is 45 per 100 000, "- You're demonstrating a informal logical fallacy called post hoc or the Correlation doesn't equal causation fallacy. Just because you see a correlation with less guns and less homicide does not mean that there is a casual relationship between the two. There are various socioeconomic variables and other variables that can account for this, There's probably more gang violence in Detroit, There is more poverty which leads to conditions that set up for more crime, The police response time and law enforcement efficiency in Detroit is awful compared to cities like Toronto. There is an ample amount of variables that can account for more crime in Detroit and less crime in Toronto. It is a fallacious and intellectually dishonest argument to say the reason for this disparity is ONLY because of guns and that it's definitively the casual factor. "The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. "- Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, " Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. " The justification clause does not modify, Restrict, Or deny the rights clause. Source: Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA James Madison had the duty of drafting the Bill of Rights from proposed amendments submitted by the states, And most coming from state constitutions. The Bill of Rights went through several revisions. The initial version of the 2nd Amendment read as follows:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. The second drafting of the 2nd Amendment saw a rearrangement of the justification and rights clauses, But no change in the intents and purposes therein:A well regulated militia, Composed of the body of the people, Being the best security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, But no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. Notice that in the original draft, Madison used the phrase "free country" as the object of what is protected by the militia. In subsequent drafts, The word "state" was substituted. This is important because the concept of "state" and "country" are interchangeable, Whereas "states" (plural) and "country" are not. Throughout the rest of the Constitution, When the states and their powers were defined, The plural was always used but in the 2nd Amendment it was not. Clearly, The intent of militia protection defined in the 2nd Amendment was to protect a form of government, Not define the power of the several states. On top of this many state amendments had individual rights protected in their constitution before the constitution was drafted such as Kentucky: Massachusetts (1780): The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense. Quotes from the founding fathers: "The constitution shall never be constructed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceful citizens from keeping their own arms"- Samuel Adams. James Madison also wrote that the bill of rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people. " He didn't just skip over the 2nd amendment. George Mason: "I ask, Sir, What is the militia? It is a whole people. The rest of your argument is an appeal to authority, I can further expand on the history of the 2A in round two but i'm running out of space