Gun Laws should be Stricter

“The fact that you claim that making a firearm is any harder then making moonshine is a bit of an uneducated statement. The operation of distilling whiskey requires thousands of dollars in equipment as does gunmaking. You can cut costs in gunsmithing similar to the way you can in distilling.” I was referring to skill “It is all doable I make guns in my garage with nothing more then a cnc machine and woodworking tools." Is it something an uneducated criminal or insane person can do? Also before it became possibly to legally obtain cannabis for medical and recreational use up to 70 percent of it was imported from other countries. So all you would accomplish is take guns away from law abiding citizens and put more money in the cartels pocket. How many would be using it if it were legal nationally? That’s the point. How much is imported says nothing about how many use it. Con is very vague here and provides no source. How much of the marijuana was confiscated before being used? How much was actually used? If guns are brought in illegally this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have any gun laws whatsoever. If marijauana is imported, this doesn’t mean we should legalize it. They managed to build makeshift guns under a regime much more difficult then the one you propose. They were also very succesful with them against a professional army. Improvised firearms aren’t as accurate or as good as professionally machined ones. You can’t kill as many people with them either. Again, just because people can break the law and make them, doesn’t mean we should have no laws. You don't agree wtih my comparison of a hammer to a gun yet your stating that a gun should be banned because it is similar to sexual assault? Con quotes what I said out of context and straw mans my argument. I wasn’t saying we need to ban guns because they’re similar to sexual assault, I was responding to Con’s claim that “People will always break any restriction a government implements so why remove guns from hard working honest people... “ My point was, just because people will break government restrictions is not a good reason to permit less gun laws. Yes it may have worked in Australia but if failed in Washington D.C. if you just want to debate by throwing up poor country examples of an invalid arguement this debate isn't going anywhere. D.C.’s ban was different. The ban did in fact lower crime for quite a while [1], but Australia’s laws are much more strict [2]. As stated above a list of countries as different in their culture as they are in their gun laws is not an arguement at all. Anyone with any credibility knows they must pinpoint their findings in a controlled environment for them to have any grounds in an intelligent debate. Con is now just using ad hoc reasoning. This is a baseless assertion, Con gave no sources to show it would be different according to the culture. Con also completely blows over the study from the ICVS and the fact that when countries get stricter gun laws the crime lowers. Arguements Now that I have found out what laws you wish to impose and the country you want to impose them in I will now bring up the second amendment. It clearly protects "the right of the people to bear arms". As I’ve shown the gun laws proposed don’t infringe on the people’s rights. Arms can still be restricted, we can call tanks, sarin, nukes, fighter jets, and RPGs as “arms”, but do we have the right to own those? Furthermore the interpretation of the second amendment by historians are much different than yours "Consider, for example, the term 'people' in the First Amendment¨Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . . '[180] If it is hard to construe the word 'people' in the Fourth Amendment to be anything but a reference to individuals, it is equally difficult to construe the term in the First Amendment as anything but a collective right. Clearly, the idea of the people assembling contemplates a large [Page 231] number of people and not a single person assembling. "Thus, linguistically, the term 'people' in the Second Amendment might be interpreted 'either way.' Standing alone, the phrase 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' could apply to individuals or collectively to 'the people.' But, unlike the use of the word in the Fourth Amendment, the Second Amendment ties the term 'people' to a collective entity, the 'well regulated Militia' which is 'necessary to the security of a free State.' This understanding is also supported by the original wording of the Amendment, which referred to the 'body' of the people. Linguistically, the Amendment can easily be read to concern the 'body'of the people. The Amendment does not say, 'individually armed citizens, being necessary to the security of a free state . . . . ' The Amendment explicitly refers to the 'militia,' a collective organization and a specific kind of militia at that one that is 'well regulated.' It is hard to imagine individuals being 'well regulated' by the government. They are only 'regulated' as a group." -Paul Finkleman "'A Well Regulated Militia': The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective" Chicago-Kent Law Review Symposium on the Second Amendment vol. 76, 2000: 195 Conclusion *All of Con was pure assertion. *Con makes various spelling and grammar mistakes. *Con ignores my main argument and straw mans one of my arguments. [1] http://content.nejm.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... Thanks!