gun control is worthless

So your saying that because now guns are reliably harmful we should not allow themBasically, you are saying that not restricting guns will deprive people of the right to live. This is absolutely crazy. Nothing can take away the right to lifeI think shooting someone would be a pretty effective strategy. There's a difference between "taking away" a right and violating it. I am not discussing "taking away" any rights, I am discussing limiting certain freedoms to prevent the violation of fundamental rights, the most basic of which is life.This is true but lets not forget you are the one trying to change this. I'm not advocating changing the 2nd amendment. I'm advocating that gun control *has value*, which involves repudiating the claim that it is in conflict with the 2nd amendment.There have been a multitude of changes to the constitution. 27 amendments in 224 years is hardly a "multitude". The 2nd amendment has not been changed for centuries. This means that it is still in the original wording used by centuries-old authors. My argument for its outdatedness stands. And for over 200 years the second amendment has been seen as a legitimate law. Why change it now.While again, I'm not advocating changing the 2nd amendment, I really need to address the fallacy here. The 3/5 Compromise was also considered "legitimate law" until slavery was abolished and blacks considered citizens. Laws should always be changed to adapt to a progressively more tolerant, educated and technologically advanced society. Otherwise we would live in a nation that denied equal rights to women, blacks, Jews, Catholics and the Irish. I hope we can agree that would be dystopian.So your saying that because now guns are reliably harmful we should not allow them (You're not your.) There's a difference between banning and regulating. Did you even read the paragraph I wrote? I explicitly stated that "I do not think the Founding Fathers were not intending the right to bear arms not to extend into the future as technology developed". My argument is not focused on the improved efficiency of technology alone, but the greater destructive power that has accompanied weapon development over two centuries. Tell me, if muskets are such harmless weapons, then how did an estimated 700,000 people die in the civil war, the American revolution, and the war of 1812. not to mention the MIA's and the countless others killed in that time period? I didn't say muskets were harmless, I said they were ineffective relative to modern semiautomatic pistols. You really want to argue that? Of course hundreds of thousands of people died in the Civil War and the War of 1812 (although by the 1860s, technology was already significantly more advanced than it had been in 1789). However, 60 million died in WWII.Now I would like to address the saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is very true. Of course an instrument is still doing something, even if it isn't acting on its own – it's an instrument, that's its job. Of course a tool needs to be *used* in order to *function*. Our own bodies are tools – if I were to accept your reasoning I could say people don't kill people either, intentions kill people because our bodies normally do not commit conscious deeds such as murder without intention behind it; thus, why bother imprisoning people? After all, they're not the problem here. That line of thinking is clearly fallacious. Our bodies are vessels of our will. This does not mean they cannot be held responsible for the consequences of obeying our will. Should we be putting guns on trial? No. We put actions and intentions on trial for murder. Thus, I don't know why this is an issue for you -- the law and justice systems are not assuming that guns kill people. Nevertheless, taking instruments away from people will diminish the ease with which they can perform certain tasks. If you were to ban all cars, trains and planes, people would still move from place to place, but it would be far slower with major impacts on traffic, economy and environment. Of course gun control will have consequences -- consequences which are arguable, but extant.Just because guns are taken away, that doesn't mean that homicides will drop. In fact, they will probably rise. California, the state with the strictest gun control laws, saw a rise in gun violence. What a coincidence.This is in direct contradiction to Australia's experiences. Show me a source for your claims about California. Show me a Harvard analysis which concludes that gun control measures are counterproductive. I have satisfied the BoP for my claim that gun control is effective -- you still flail in baseless assumptions. Also, guns aren't the only weapon that cause deaths. Based on the sites www.politifact.com and hotair.com more people are killed by blunt objects and knives than those killed by guns.A. By no stretch of the imagination are these sources viable scientific studies and thus they are irrelevant to an educated debate supported by facts. B. This does not mean we should not attempt to diminish gun deaths. That's like saying that, based on Wikipedia.com, more murders are committed by men than women, so we should naturally give up on regulating female criminals.In conclusion...(1) you have not provided any valid evidence of your own;(2) you have not addressed the valid evidence which I have provided that directly contradicts your baseless views;(3a) you have conceded the debate to me by admitting that regulation "will somewhat limit the opportunity for violent people to obtain guns"; and(3b) you have conceded the debate to me again by admitting that "I agree with your license argument".The debate topic is: Gun control is worthless. You yourself have surrendered the debate to me by contradicting that resolution and agreeing with my arguments against your faulty logic. Worthless means having no real value or use. Saving lives and limiting potential criminals' access to weapons is an invaluable and immensely useful result of gun regulation measures. I am glad that we agree.