Gun control will do nothing to stop mass shootings.

First, the constitution. It was already quoted, but I'll state it again, this time as the version ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson. It is the same text, only with slight changes in capitalization and punctuation to make it flow. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1) The right to bear arms is directly connected with the "well regulated militia". As Pro said, the Founders framed this amendment because they had recently experienced the rule of Britain, and the restriction of their rights to bear arms. As Pro also said, they wrote this amendment because they feared the development of an aggressive government. Nowhere is self-defense from other citizens mentioned. What the constitution directly supports is the ability to arm yourself against the government in case of tyranny --- if we are to view it strictly, then those who own guns should have them for the primary purpose of defending themselves from the government. And in order to defend against the government with weaponry, one does not need concealed carry. All that is needed is a gun tucked away in a locked safe, under the agreement that it shall not be removed unless there is an aggressive act by the government. With today's media, such an act would spread across the country within seconds, and gun-owners could easily retrieve their weapons. Also, another point of contention is what "arms" should be allowed? If one upholds a strict interpretation of the Constitution, then we should go by what the Founders had access to and meant by "arms". That is, unreliable and inaccurate muskets with bayonets and almost no interchangeable parts. After all, no sane person would say that it is acceptable for civilians to have nuclear weapons, yet that is the level of weaponry the government can employ. Any restriction of rights that still allows muskets does not infringe gun rights beyond what the Founders did. Of course, it would be strange and quite pointless to make such a law, but that is under our Constitutional power, if we hold strictly to what the Founders wrote. I certainly think that there is room to interpret in the Constitution. It is a brilliant document written by brilliant people, but it is still 228 years old. The fact that they foresaw so many things is incredible, but we can't expect them to have foreseen everything. Under the current circumstances, there is no weaponry that civilians could use to defend themselves if the government wanted to use their strongest force (nuclear level weaponry, or even just high-level bombs). So the idea of civilians bearing arms against the government becomes much less credible. Now to my evidence that gun control could stop mass shootings. Look at Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea. They have the lowest fire-arm related death rates in the world, at 0.03, 0.06, and 0.06 per 100,000, respectively (2). They also have some of the most restrictive gun-laws in the world (3). In Japan and South Korea, guns are allowed for sporting and hunting purposes after an intense background check. In Hong Kong, it is mostly restricted to the military (3). If such intense gun-ownership laws were enacted in the United States, and the overall amount of guns was reduced, a reduction in gun deaths would logically follow. Now, this may or may not be purely democratic, but there would be a reduction in mass shootings, and lives would be preserved. Now, for your last paragraph of argument. I'll disassemble it; Pro's quotes will be italicized. I argue that gun control is a way of the federal government to limit the power granted to the people. This is true. However, this does not have to do with whether or not gun control will stop mass shootings, or the constitutionality of gun control. If the population is defenseless, they obviously have no way of defending themselves from an oppressive government--which was the reason the Founders created the 2nd amendment in the first place. This is not true. We now have a well established system, in which it would be very hard for a government to become truly oppressive, since leaders are still elected by the will of the people. The Founders had written this system, but it was not yet well established and practiced. This makes the government fully able to manipulate its citizens and make them completely dependent, which sets the foundation for Socialism. Does the current government avoid manipulating the people because they have guns? Guns are not the only way for people to be independent. The government in this time does not fear placing restraints on civilians because of the possibility of rebellion. According to the Constitution, and definitely by the Declaration of Independence, the people have the right to stand up and rebel against this type of oppression. People do have a right to rebel if there is true oppression. However, in this case, gun control would exist in order to preserve human life. The intent of it is not oppression, and the context does not compare at all to the events surrounding the Revolution. That was the willful oppression of an entire people for the gain of a foreign power. This would be a solution to individual citizens slaughtering each other with weaponry they cannot be trusted to handle. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing." He also said, "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion". (4) Yet we went nearly a hundred years without a rebellion, and when it did happen, it was the bloodiest event in American history. And the rebels, in this case, were the people trying to protect slavery. Not to mention, a rebellion in this time would require significantly more firepower than legally purchasable guns. Bombs and high-level explosives would be necessary for any rebel force to accomplish something beyond pointless slaughter. I would also like to say that americangunfacts seems to be quite biased. The information might be accurate, but when I checked the statistic about Europe's 3 mass shootings, it led me to an opinion article from usatoday that was not sourced. The source given within the site for the statistic about women with guns defending themselves also was not clear, and the page number given did not have any such numbers. I look forward to the conclusion in Round 3! 1: http://memory.loc.gov... See Art. IV 2: https://en.wikipedia.org... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org... 4: http://www.let.rug.nl...