Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective.

First I would like to say that this argument isn't about liberals, or conservatives, this argument is about figuring out a way to make the United States a safer and better place to live. Secondly, you keep asking me how gun bans are constitutional, but I keep responding and giving you examples of restrictions on firearms. In the first round I stated that most fully-automatic weapons are already banned from the private use of citizens. Fully-automatic weapons are obviously firearms, and they are banned. Making the banning of firearms constitutional. I fail to understand how showing that the founding fathers drank quite heavily makes my quote any less effective. What my quote was showing was that the founding fathers intended to make the constitution so that it could be changed. You say that anything that goes against the constitution, is unconstitutional. But what about the ban on slavery, that went against the constituion, is the banning of slavery unconstitutional? What about when women were not allowed to vote, is the ban on voting restrictions unconstitutional? As a society we develop and grow out of old laws. So not everything that goes against the constitution make it unconstitutional. I watched the youtube clip and did a little bit of fact checking on those statistics. It turns that if your read carefully Ben Swann is saying that 400 gun murders are justifiable because the police shot them, and 200 are justifiable because they were in self-defense. Making the rest of the 7,903 gun homicides unjustifiable (makes you wonder why those statistics were presented the way they were). Also I did a fact check on the number of deaths caused by guns a year in Britain. 39 is the number of deaths caused by guns with the JUSTIFIABLE deaths added to it. 35 is the number of unjustifiable deaths. However you put it 7,903 to 35 is a ridiculous ratio. Also I did some fact checking on Ben Swann's crime statistics. I'm not sure where he got his statistics from but according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, the United States has 5,353,512 more crimes a year than Great Britain. Also a ridiculous ratio. Regarding your questions on Japan. In round 3 you stated that Japan doesn't commit as many gun murders as the United States because they have a "homogeneous population which takes out the variables we have in the US.". By showing you the statistic that Japan is ranked 4th in total crime in the world, I was showing you that they really don't have more morals than the United States. Because they are ranked 4th in crime, but 20th in gun murders, I was proving that the gun restrictions are having an effect on their society. But enough with the overseas statistics, as you are obviously never going to accept them. Lets look at our neighbors up north, Canada. Canada has much stricter gun laws than the United States. Canada also has 4 times less crime than the United States. In addition Canada has 64% less firearm murders than the United States. That research is also done by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention. Canada has a similar society to ours, but because of tighter gun restrictions they are able to enjoy a lower crime rate than the United States. I have no comment on the civil war remark, as that is for the voter to decide wether that is a legitimate claim or not. In your last argument you stated that the number of people being killed in a very rare instance could just as easily have resulted from a bomb. If so, then why don't we hear about any major bombings in Canada, or Great Britain, or Japan. What has to understood is that banning of certain firearms makes it harder for mass murders to comit the acts of terror they comit. The other thing that has to be understood is that stabbings are much easier to defend against, as oppose to a semi-automatic firearm. It is not rational to compare a knife to any type of firearm. Also, regarding Adam Lanza's mother. She is to blame for allowing her son to get a hold of her weapons. But can I ask, what did she need a semi-automatic weapon for? It is highly unlikely she would unleash multiple rounds of amo on an intruder. What I am getting at is that there is no rational need for these high powered weapons to be in the hands of citizens, when it has been proven time and time again that these weapons have been mis-handled. So in conclusion, firearm bans have been proven constitutional in the past. You can't walk into a store and buy fully-automatic weapons, or missile-launchers, or a tank. Restrictions on certain firearms are constitutional. Also, restrictions on firearms have been proven effective. Anywhere from Canada, to Britain, to Japan, restrictions on firearms have helped lower gun crime rates, and in return a safer enivorment.