Effective gun control is a good thing.

I would like to preface my arguments by saying that if I have been too flippant in any responses, I apologize, though, as I note further down, there are some severe problems of fact in Pro's argument. On to rebuttal and argument. When something is a right, whether statistics show that right is abused has nothing to do with whether that right should be protected. If we did that for the 1st amendment, there wouldn't be one any more, since I would wager it's "abused" every day millions of times. A right is a right; arguing for a certain degree of limitation on that right is one thing, but Pro's case is that the right should be abolished altogether. Pro argues that "I will NOT be arguing that people do not have the right to defend themselves. " Weapons are the means by which one defends oneself. Simply put: take away the means and you have taken away the ability. Guns are a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle. And if you argue that ONE group can have guns, but another can't, you ARE arguing that people do not have a right to defend themselves. Further, upon what philosophical grounds does Pro feel that the state should have a right above the people? He lists statistics and says that the constitution is outdated, but those are not philosophical positions that justify his belief. After all, getting rid of all the protections of the 4th and 5th amendments, and locking all citizens up in jail in solitary confinement, would undoubtedly lower the crime rate, but that's an obviously ludicrous position. Talking about only statistics without a philosophical support takes one straight down the slippery-slope into absurdity. And as regards to those statistics: The UK has 5 times the violent crime of the US,[1] despite its gun ban. Somehow, banishing guns did not magically reduce violence in the way Pro seems to think it would. In reference to this comment: "US states which have stricter gun control laws have 43% less gun deaths per year. " It does nothing to bolster Pro's contention that guns should be outlawed COMPLETELY. Indeed, a certain degree of what's called "gun control" is called for, and what degree is up for debate. But Pro's position is complete prohibition. I already agree that the system of gun control in this country needs to be overhauled. But Pro has a much higher bar than that: the case of complete prohibition. ". .. assault rifles to any Dick, Joe and Harry who wants one. .. " Here Pro shows that he has a flawed perspective on the gun debate. Assault RIFLES have a specific definition, and have been completely prohibited for civilian purchase since 1934 [2]. Perhaps Pro is talking about Assault WEAPONS, a term that essentially criminalizes how scary a gun looks, and which, when banned, that ban had little to no effect[3]? I can't be sure, he'd have to clarify. "For God's sake, if you want a minigun in some states you can have one. " Again: No. There are means to purchase them, sure, in principle, but they are INCREDIBLY heavily regulated, and Pro hasn't cited any crimes that have been committed with any miniguns; I certainly am not aware of any. "I don't know about you, but I see a massive potential for a security breach here. People who want to kill someone don't have to go to the criminal underworld and purchase, in many cases, more expensive guns to do so. Because they can buy a machine gun perfectly legally and unregulated over a counter. " As noted above, this is simply and utterly untrue. "You will all remember the Sandy Hook shootings this December. .. I am sorry, I see a huge problem with somebody being able to own that many guns and have to take no safety precautions on them. .. We are not here to debate whether or not gun control can work, and so it is pointless trying to tell me that Adam could have obtained the guns anyway. " Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole her guns. You cannot possibly assert that the tragedy would have been avoided if she hadn't had them, because you cannot prove he wouldn't have simply murdered a cop to achieve the same goal, and your proposition is that the police/military will still have guns. Adam Lanza was crazy and evil. I see a huge problem with knowing that if a crazy/evil person HAS obtained guns, there is NO WAY I could possibly defend myself even in theory. ". .. Adam Lanza . .. had every opportunity, and apparently, right, to obtain . .. those weapons. " Again, he murdered and stole those guns. Despite what Pro may or may not think about laws in this country, it's not a right to murder and steal. Pro's argument here has no merit. In fact, very few mass shootings are committed by legally obtained guns; they were purchased legally at some point, certainly, but they are stolen by the evil/crazy sonofabitch who uses them, or are in the criminal world. 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. I assume Pro is not against women's voting rights? I mean, it was signed in 1920, and that's nearly 100 years ago! Or we could go to the very first amendment, as it's just as old as the 2nd. ". .. When the constitution was signed, people had muskets. " And so did the government. "Not SCAR-Hs and RPDs. If you want a musket, fine. Knock yourself out. " First: those ARE illegal. Second, does Pro concede? Because Pro's stated position was of total prohibition, which seems to be contradicted by this. "But as for machine guns, please don't" As already noted, those are already illegal. So yay for reality! "I doubt that the forefathers, knowing of the school and cinema shootings of recent years, would support their laws in modern day society. " Considering the first known school shooting was in 1764 [4], Pro's argument falls flat. "The premise on which the second amendment was based was that people need guns to participate in things like hunting. For sports and for self defence in case of a government collapse. Nowadays people argue they need guns for self defence in general. Guns kill people. No matter how much you argue that, no actually, rappers do. .. if Adam Lanza's mother had not had all the rifles she did, those 28 people would probably still be alive. " The emotional appeal based on shaky grounds aside, Pro never argues against the need for hunting, sports, or self-defense. On a final note, I ask Pro to re-read: "The constitution is no longer relevant in the 21st century" I hope he realizes how ridiculous it sounds. On a final note, I would point out that I wouldn't have taken this debate if Pro were arguing for a fantasy world without guns. But he isn't. He's arguing for a world WITH guns, but where ONLY the police and military have them. He doesn't trust the people; I do not trust the government. While it is hard to find statistics on police misuse of force, it happens with frightening regularity [5] [6] [7]. I am by far no "gun-nut" (if only because I'm far too poor; those things are expensive! ). But: Pro has given no philosophical case for why only the state may have guns, his arguments about history fall flat, he doesn't know what the laws are presently, and his statistical argument holds little to no merit. Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://www.dailykos.com... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://gawker.com...