Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting

At no point have I made the argument that gun-control is a basic requirement of life like food, warmth, water, and oxygen. That would be a ridiculous and pointless debate to have. I am sorry that my opponent interpreted it that way but the context and title (using necessary in its adjective form) of my debate made the meaning clear. Just as he has clarified his points, I have clarified mine. The conversation about gun control is a pressing one that needs to take place in the U. S. and that is the one I intended to have. It seems my opponent was looking to sign up for an easy debate win by arguing about wording and interpretation. I insisted to debate the real issue and that is something he clearly didn't want to do. Now to the real issue that impacts all Americans that I do indeed want to debate: It is common sense that gun violence is bad. My opponent argues "there are people who think that gun violence is a demonstration of how much of a man you are. .. " If there are people sick enough out there to look at the gun violence committed by people like Omar Mateen at the Pulse Nightclub and admire him for being manly, they are mentally unfit to own guns and no amount of education or telling them "No actually what he did was bad. Gun violence is bad" will change that. They are the exact type of people who should not be able to purchase guns legally and they are the exact type of people that would be unable to do so after the implementation of a background check system and closing of purchase loopholes. Gang mentality exists independently of gun violence and nothing my opponent has proposed will change that. If there are people who cannot naturally comprehend that using guns to murder or inflict damage on innocent people is "bad", no amount of education will change that and they should not have guns. My opponent claims I don't want to "eliminate the bunch of people that die, but rather '"eliminate"' only the small portion of deaths". Since his wording is erroneous in that I cannot "eliminate people that die" I'm assuming he means combat all gun violence as opposed to just mass shootings. I am absolutely for combating all types of gun violence. But gun violence in America is multifaceted. It encompasses homicides, accidental shootings, suicides, mass shootings, gang-related shootings, etc. There is no one solution to eliminate all these problems. Different types of gun violence demand different solutions and my proposed assault rifle ban is intended to curb and deter the specific problem of mass murder attacks not the general state-wide murder rates for which my opponent provided statistics. The AWB was successful in exactly that. "From September 1994 to September 2004"the duration of the Assault Weapons Ban"there were 15 mass shootings over 10 years; again, an average of 1.5 a year. .. since the Assault Weapons Ban there have been 28 mass shooting events in eight short years. " ("The Assault Weapons Ban: Did It Curtail Mass Shootings? - The Century Foundation. " The Century Foundation. N. p. , 11 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 June 2016. ) The assault rifle ban is one policy of many that I have proposed that will combine to address the different types of gun violence. Background check systems and the closing of purchase loopholes will help combat problems outside of mass shootings for example. My opponent makes the analogy that by not proposing to ban all guns I am "like someone say he rather eliminate poverty in Africa, rather than eliminate poverty in the world". In actuality, my logic is analogous to "What causes and eliminates poverty in Africa, is different than what may cause or eliminate poverty in other parts of the world. " By combining specific, distinct, and different policies targeted at specific, distinct, and different problems will help us reduce gun violence. My opponent has reported no evidence that assault rifles are the weapon of choice for "people who go hunting, small game control, personal defense, and target shooting. " whereas I have reported evidence that they are the weapon of choice for mass shooters (. http://www.motherjones.com...). He alleged that an assault rifle ban is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment right (he does not allege that my other proposed policies are) but our freedoms of speech, religion, etc, are all subject to boundaries and restrictions. There is no reason the 2nd Amendment should be immune to these. Furthermore, the Supreme Court by extension has upheld the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban by repeatedly rejecting challenges and upholding lower courts' decisions (most recently . https://www.washingtonpost.com...) I have proven an assault rifle ban is a plausible proposal. I have claimed a handgun ban is not plausible and my opponent has disputed this only with speculation. Conclusion: I ask you to vote Pro because gun violence has grown out of control in America. The Orlando Nightclub shooting and the countless other mass shootings in the past decade have highlighted how current gun laws are enabling horrific crimes by granting criminals legal and easy access to weapons that can inflict massive damage on American civilians. I have demonstrated that all constitutional rights are subject to boundaries, regulations, and discussion but the 2nd Amendment enjoys an immunity from these that is unfounded and costing innocent lives. I have clarified that my policy proposals specifically target different aspects of the gun violence problems and that no one policy is capable of stopping all cases of gun violence. The assault rifle ban is a plausible policy intended to curb mass shootings. Handguns are not the predominant weapon of mass murder nor is there any evidence to suggest a handgun ban would be a plausible policy to propose. Background checks and closing of purchase loopholes would help combat other types of gun violence. My opponent has repeatedly tried to debate wording and claim that the debate should be whether gun control is a basic requirement for life as opposed to having a conversation about the real issue at hand despite my many clarifications. His incorrect interpretation does not bar us from having a real debate over a real issue. My opponent has addressed only one of my proposed policies (assault rifle ban) and has provided a vague and unsupported alternative (gun violence education). Thank You