Gun control will do nothing to stop mass shootings.

First, the issue with "arms" in the Constitution. There is no verifiable way to confirm exactly what was meant, but there are two logical thought processes. One is that the Founders literally meant what they had available, which were inaccurate, unreliable muskets made before the existence of interchangeable parts or the mini-ball. This is what was widely available, to both the government and the people. The other thought, which makes more sense contextually, is that citizens should have the same level of arms as the government, in order to defend themselves against an oppressive government, such as in the case of the Revolution. Now, in 1787, both these two thoughts produced the same conclusion -- people get muskets. Now, however, they produce wildly opposing thoughts. The first still gives us muskets. The second leaves us with tanks, nuclear bombs, and other such heavy artillery, because that is what the government could employ against its employ if it so desired. And so one cannot definitively assert that the Constitution supports individuals owning weapons for self defense, such as rifles/handguns, etc. Such weaponry would be useless in defending citizens from the current government. Now, I provided the statistics about the Asian countries simply because they were the three highest. America is down at around 60th, along with many third-world countries such as Guatemala, which are controlled by gangs. One has to go up ten places to find the nearest developed country, Finland, and their gun-related death rate is 1/3 of the United States. One can look at Romania (4th lowest), Ukraine (7th), and our old buddies the U. K. (9th) [1]. They all have comparably strict laws; Romania does not allow citizens to purchase lethal firearms. Ukraine is a bit more open, but most handguns are illegal, and concealed carry licenses only go to those who can definitively prove that their life is in danger; also, all firearms must be kept unloaded and in a safe. In the UK, laws are slightly more open, but it is still hard to acquire anything other than a shotgun. In many parts of the UK, handguns are mostly banned, and the process to get one is difficult; also, self-defense is no longer accepted as a viable reason for owning a gun, though it is legitimate to use a registered gun in self-defense [2]. Here is where Pro originally presented facts about gun-control (and I will not dispute their legitimacy). Con also says that enforced gun control would decrease mass shootings. This has been proven false repeatedly. Evidence compiled by the FBI shows that since the year 1950, rapes among people who carry firearms has dropped 5%, aggravated assaults have dropped 7%, and murder rates have fallen almost 9%. .. I did not directly address these facts, because they did not seem pertinent to the topic. Pro says that enforcing gun control would not reduce mass shootings, then lists stats about rape, aggravated assault, and murder. Also, the stat says "people who carry firearms". This implies that before 1950, people who carried firearms got assaulted more, and after 1950, people who carried firearms got assaulted less. It does not say that people who did not carry firearms got assaulted more, then acquired firearms, and then got assaulted less. Also, to mention that first quote, I also am not interested in banning where people can carry guns; I'm interested in people not having guns --- which is the gun-control system for the majority of the countries I listed above. And now, Kennesaw. The law made there did not actually require every household to have a gun; in fact, you could (and still can) get out of owning a gun if you are mentally disabled, are poor, are a convicted felon, or do not want one because of any belief (religious or otherwise) [3]. Furthermore, the law was never meant to be enforced, according to a lieutenant from the police department: "Added Lt. Graydon, "It was not meant to be an enforceable law. The police department has never searched homes to make sure you had a gun. It was meant more or less as a political statement to support citizens' second amendment rights to own firearms" [4]. Another point to consider about Kennesaw is the incredibly small sample size. If you read the next paragraph in source 4, it says that there have been 4 gun related homicides in the last thirty years. Finally, one of the most important facts to note is that violent crime rates in all of Georgia have gone down significantly since 1982, not just in Kennesaw [5]. Using the tool provided by the FBI, I have found that the murder rate, forcible rape rate, violent crime rate, robbery rate, and aggravated assault rate are all at their lowest point since 1982 throughout Georgia [6]. So despite the fact that Kennesaw is the only area that enacted the law, all of Georgia's rates have gone down. My Jefferson quote was mainly to point out how wrong he could be -- he said that we should rebel every 25 years, and that it would be bad not to. However, that is clearly not the case. I actually have no love for what Jefferson did after the Declaration. Once again, your quotes about arms depend on the definition of arms. I have already addressed that a few paragraphs earlier, so I'll move on. The Civil War was fought over the states right to secede. The South seceded because of slavery --- Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the confederacy, admitted in 1861 that "This [slavery] was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" [7]. It was not til later that the South tried to revoke this position and make state's rights the main issue. But you're right, this really has nothing to do with mass shootings in the current time -- it was only brought up originally to show that the Founders could (and did) err in their assumptions. For a college class this semester I read a civil war book, a biography of Abraham Lincoln, watched Ken Burn's civil war, and the textbook, so the topic is firmly ingrained in my head. That is why I thought of it -- it has just been consuming my thoughts. (I just realized -- my profile may say I'm 24. Not accurate -- I am also in the pain of finals week, so I fully understand the long time it took to reply). Pro did very little to acknowledge my final paragraph of points in Round 2, so I guess this is the end of my rebuttal. I'd like to conclude by saying that most facts presented by those against gun-control (such as how many lives may be saved per mass shooting by armed civilians) only serve to reduce the amount of deaths per shooting. They do not stop shootings. The fact that America's gun-related death rate is on par with those of nigh-lawless, poorly developed countries should be painful to consider. Thanks to Pro for a good debate! I hope that whatever way one votes, it is in the interest of saving lives. I doubt you will see me again in the politics section -- I generally debate religion. 1. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . https://www.municode.com... 4. . http://www.wusa9.com...(News%20-%20Flipboard) 5. . http://www.snopes.com... 6. . http://www.ucrdatatool.gov... 7. . http://teachingamericanhistory.org...