Effective gun control is a good thing.

This is my summary. "Thanks to my opponent, and let's start this round with something I agree with my opponent on: It's trivially true that eliminating civilian guns would almost certainly lower civilian gun crimes. " If nothing else, this is my opponent conceding that the basis of almost every single point I have made is true. My opponent tries to argue 2 things I find to be at the least, very objectionable. 1: that, even though “It's trivially true that eliminating civilian guns would almost certainly lower civilian gun crimes” we should not, as it is a right, and 2: That my phrase “To conclude, people having guns ends lives, the state having guns saves them (usually)" was an unsupported assertion. This was a conclusion. My post was the support. This is a list of assertions that are not small, trivial assertions, but rather assertions on which my opponent’s arguments seemed to rely, made by Con: “ “My opponent then goes on to try to claim that his argument that the constitution is "no longer relevant" has "statistics" and is "valid". It doesn't, and it isn't. ” “When something is a right, whether statistics show that right is abused has nothing to do with whether that right should be protected” “All of the arguments Pro makes about the Constitution's age are without merit, and could be applied to ANY of the rights contained in the constitution” " “The constitution is no longer relevant in the 21st century" I hope he realizes how ridiculous it sounds. ” “ "it wasn't the forefather's intent to give everyone an killing machine. " (it was). ” I am yet to see a single well structured and or analysed argument as to why the right to bear arms should be protected, or as to why the second amendment is still relevant. I have, however, made arguments for the opposition to both. Let’s clear up the Assault weapon and rifle confusion. Before Con corrected me, I was not aware that there were defined terms for semi automatic and fully automatic weapons. When I used the term assault rifle, in every case bar 1, I did in fact mean semi-automatic assault weapons. But I didn’t know there were separate terms. Saying the wrong thing doesn’t mean that that’s what I meant, for example, if I said the I love cheese and potato crisps, I probably meant to say cheese and onion, I don’t think I’d have actually meant cheese and potato crisps. When I said: “I hope that anyone reading this knows what I mean when I use the terms machine gun and assault weapon synonymously” I didn’t mean that machine gun and assault weapons were actually synonyms, as I knew then that they were not, but rather, I meant that I hope that the readers were aware of the laws surrounding assault rifles and assault weapons and could realise that I didn’t mean literally assault rifles, as I already knew that most automatic weapons were illegal. And I should think that anyone who would start a debate on the topic would first know the laws. The exception to this was when I said “Because they can buy a machine gun perfectly legally and unregulated over a counter. ” This was an exaggeration of the truth. As already stated before, I know the gun laws in America. While I am not claiming to have an irrefutable knowledge of the law, the only thing I was mistaken on was my terminology. This doesn’t render my argument invalid, my statistics were still correct and my facts were too if you account for the terminology. A lot of my points about weapon sales were purposefully exaggerated, to display that I feel that even being allowed automatic weapons heavily regulated [1] is way too much of a liberty. Con seemed to think that I was arguing for the prohibition of ONLY civilian guns. I haven’t been. I defined that I would also put pressure on illegal guns, and that we are not here to debate the logistics of this, but rather the morals. The fact that this is a right is an argument that has been upheld by the opposition throughout, however I fail to see any justification of why this should be from Con. My “made up” stats about killing 2000 people in 5 minutes were not actually made up. And I didn’t source an article about Full auto weapons. I sourced an article about rate of fire, in which it says that many automatic weapons can fire from 400 – 900 rpm. So it can be reasonably assumed that it would be entirely possible (but equally as unlikely) to kill 2000 people in 5 minuets. As noted above, automatic weapons are actually legal for civilian ownership under regulations. An AK can be bought, but in semi auto. I never said you have no reason for owning a full auto AK. I’ve told you that people can’t have guns, legal or not, because I believe that by not having them, less people will die. This has been proved, and is basic logic. Less nuts means less nut allergy deaths. The same can be said for guns. I think it is stupid that people can have weapons like the AR 15 with very few limitations [2], weapons like this can fire 50+ [3] rounds a minute and it was used in the sandy hook shooting and many other massacres. [4] The shear danger that these weapons impose is obviously something we want to reduce, and it can’t be protected as a right if it leads to deaths. Other rights are abused in America, I know that, but the abuse of the 1st amendment doesn’t cause deaths. Death is not something to be taken lightly and should be protected at all costs. A humans’ life, even just 1 of the thousands killed by guns a year, should be valued above an outdated freedom. The elimination of guns will, on large, affect the lives of gun owners in a very small way. As I have prior explained, pressure will be put on illegal gun trade as well, so the need to defend one’s self with a gun will be greatly less. The right to bear arms cannot be taken as a right anymore. It ends lives, from suicide or murder. Nobody has the right to murder, and so to equip them with the means with which to do so very easily and on large scales is ludicrous. The state can use guns to keep guns down and to suppress crime otherwise. They will have a valid and good reason to use weapons. No civilian does, home defence doesn’t require an arsenal, especially with the extra assurance that criminals will seldom have guns anymore. We are not in the middle of a government collapse, or anywhere near one for realities sake. The constitution is mostly a good guideline on which to lead a country. I respect it’s morals and realise most of it is still relevant. But the second amendment isn’t anymore. I’ve explained this and I strongly believe this to be true. The guns people have today do kill. They don’t defend, like a baseball bat or a Kevlar vest does, they kill. Two teens were shot to death last thanksgiving for breaking into a house. [5] They are far too powerful to be home defence weapons. Especially when they’re not needed. Like the society I want to achieve. To sum up this debate in a paragraph: we have heard from me, that gun crime rates are far too high, that they will be lowered with the advent of total gun control, the constitution is mostly relevant but the second amendment is not, based on how much guns have changed, and that the state needs guns for a good and justifiable reason. From con, we learn that we need to protect the rights of human beings, that total gun control is too far, and that the constitution was put into force for good reason. Correct me if I am wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. Sources: [1] = . http://articles.latimes.com... [2] = . http://www.twsarms.com... [3] = . http://www.constitution.org... [4] = . http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... [5] = . http://abcnews.go.com...