It is more sane and wise to support *some* gun control.

2nd Amendment 1st off, I did not say this is not a debate about authority, I said it is not a debate about law. I also pointed out that the supreme court was an appeal to authority, because this is not a debate about law. The USSC’s interpretation of the constitution is a form of case law, and the constitution is a form of statutory law; statutory law is superior to case law, and case law is only relevant to court cases. You can use a Court Case to prove we have a right to bear arms, but you cannot use it to disprove we have a right to bear arms, because statutory law trumps case law. This is not a debate about the legality of gun control; it’s a debate about the logic behind it. Pro dropped the quotes by the founders, which implied that the main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide civilians with military arms. The quotes also implied that the 2nd amendment was a safeguard against the Federal government, and against a standing army. Obviously the founders believed civilians should have military grade weapons, and Pro has already ceded that the founders were both “sane and wise”. Practicality - 8th amendment Increased penalties do not deter crimes. If penalties are too lenient, people may choose to risk it. Studies by the Department of Economics at Centre College have shown that increasing the penalties does not reduce the crime rate. http://tinyurl.com... Preventative laws only serve to oppress the law abiding citizens. Pro claims excessive penalties do not violate the 8th amendment, but the 8th amendment clearly states that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Black Markets Pro falsely claims I dropped his rebuttal for black markets. I did not drop any of Pro’s arguments. I pointed out. Pro tries to claim that because law abiding citizens can still obtain less effective weapons, black markets would not arise. There is a supply and demand for specific types of guns; any prohibition, whether it is on all guns or just specific types, will cause black markets. There are legal drugs (Caffeine & tobacco) and there are black market drugs (pot, meth, coke ect.). Black Markets by definition sell exclusively to criminals, because what they sell is illegal. Automatics can be used for self-defense; suppressive fire is a perfect self-defense feature. Pro claims that a ban on specific weapons would ensure that only law enforcement and the military could obtain those weapons. Again, this is a false claim, due to black markets. WMD Pro ceded that the NPT failed to prevent the spread of WMD. His interpretation was that “since laws are broken, we should not have laws”. Once again, the purpose of laws is not to prevent crime but rather to allow criminals to be held responsible for their actions. People murder others every day, but that does not mean murder should be legalized; if murder was legalized the murderers would not be held accountable for their actions. Is it logical that South Koreans cannot develop nuclear weapons, but the rogue North Koreans can? Absolutely not; WMD act as a deterrence to war, but if the aggressors have nukes and the defenders don’t, the defenders are at a severe disadvantage. Alternatives/Mass Murder Pro claims I misunderstood his argument, but that is not the case. Pro misunderstood my argument. Pro claimed alternatives were irrelevant, but I claimed they were relevant, because when one weapon is not an option there is always another weapon. Pro ceded that when the first choice weapon is not available, the criminal will use another weapon. Pro’s rebuttal does not refuse my claims. If McVeigh can make a bomb with fertilizer, it follows that by banning guns school shootings would be replaced with school bombings. Again McVeigh caused 818 casualties, while Lanza only caused 26 casualties. Bazookas Pro dropped my point about bazookas.