Effective gun control is a good thing.

Here ya go!Sorry I took so long...A few distinctionsIn this debate I will NOT be arguing that people do not have the right to defend themselves. I am however arguing that people cannot be trusted with weapons and that the constitution was written a LONG time ago. Times changeTrust I am from the United kingdom. Here we have 0.25 gun deaths year per 100000 people [1]. In the USA, there are 10.3 per every 100000 people. [2] That's over 40 times as many. And US states which have stricter gun control laws have 43% less gun deaths per year [3]. Does this maybes show you something?That gun control tends to lead to less gun related deaths. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that less guns will herald less gun related deaths. A massive problem with a lot of the US at the moment is that they will give high powered assault rifles to any Dick, Joe and Harry who wants one. For God's sake, if you want a minigun in some states you can have one. I don't know about you, but I see a massive potential for a security breach here. People who want to kill someone don't have to go to the criminal underworld and purchase, in many cases, more expensive guns to do so. Because they can buy a machine gun perfectly legally and unregulated over a counter. You will all remember the Sandy Hook shootings this December. If you are unfamiliar, a man called Adam Lanza walked into an elementary school and gunned down and killed 27 children and staff. It is certainly one of the most horrific events of recent years. How did Adam get 5 guns? His mother's arsenal. I am sorry, I see a huge problem with somebody being able to own that many guns and have to take no safety precautions on them. She had 5 guns, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Nobody needs that kind of firepower for self defence. Had gun laws been a lot stricter, like I am proposing, Adam would have had almost no chance of obtaining those guns and the world would not have had to suffer through an atrocity like that. We are not here to debate whether or not gun control can work, and so it is pointless trying to tell me that Adam could have obtained the guns anyway. I already stated this was about effective gun control. Not semi effective gun control. So I put it to you, that by allowing any person to buy weaponry designed for military and hunting purposes is inherently asking for people to abuse that system. Adam Lanza had no prior criminal record [4] and so without gun safety, he had every opportunity, and apparently, right, to obtain and use those weapons. Gun control will greatly decrease the number of people who shoot others, because it will greatly increase the number of people who have guns.A right?The right to bear arms is only a right under the US constitution. The constitution was signed in 1787. That's well over 200 years ago. If the UDHR had been written 220 years ago do you think that most people would agree that whatever they put down then are good morals to live by today? I think not. I find it preposterous that the ethics of the forefathers are taken to be so valuable in modern day society. They are not they standards on which to build a civilization as large and as prosperous as the USA or the UK. The 19th century saw the largest rise in the slave trade in history. Over half of the population were slaves. And this was after the constitution was signed. Should people today be defending their 2nd amendment right to own slaves? Are these the things you would defend today?Things, believe it or not, have changed in the last 200 years. The beliefs and they ethics that may have been highly respected then are not now. So how is it sensible to take them as law in a society entirely different from 19th century America. When the constitution was signed, people had muskets. Not SCAR-Hs and RPDs. If you want a musket, fine. Knock yourself out. But as for machine guns, please don't. I doubt that the forefathers, knowing of the school and cinema shootings of recent years, would support their laws in modern day society. It is the availability of the killing machines on the market today that make it so easy for the killers, and so supporting that is not a relevant argument.The premise on which the second amendment was based was that people need guns to participate in things like hunting. For sports and for self defence in case of a government collapse. Nowadays people argue they need guns for self defence in general. Guns kill people. No matter how much you argue that, no actually, rappers do... if Adam Lanza's mother had not had all the rifles she did, those 28 people would probably still be alive.While I admit that all cannot be held accountable for the actions of a few, 30000 is not a few. The total prohibition of all civilian firearms is a measure of prevention, to save the lives of those 30 thousand,a measure which will not effect the gun owners otherwise. We hear of cases every day in which Americans shoot people dead for entering their house. To link back to my other point, people who judge that to be fair justice are not the kind of people who can be trusted not to go further.To summarize my opening points: People cannot be trusted not to take advantage of the system The constitution is no longer relevant in the 21st century Less guns will result in less gun deaths. (Bit of a no brainer) Sources:[1] = http://www.gunpolicy.org...[2] = http://www.gunpolicy.org...[3] = http://communities.washingtontimes.com...[4] = http://digitaljournal.com... Thank you for listening (reading) and I thank the opposition in advance for their counter arguments.