Resolved: Guns should be prohibited.

My opponent seems to believe my statements are "absurd" and lacking source, yet he fails to realize the very strength of opinions. Contention 1: Less Guns, Less CrimeMy opponent seems to believe that past occurrences will dictate the future, yet he has failed to adhere to our country's rates and what they've dictated. For example, the shooting of Trayvon Martin took place because of higher and more stringent gun control, and the aftermath of that crime took hold of the nation as a whole and some outside residents in different countries because of the nature of racism and the destructive affects of free and unfiltered usage of guns.Even though UK and Australia and Canada have been proven by my opponent to be major proponents of less gun control, that doesn't mean our country can go with the same mindset as well. Just because something works for one person, doesn't mean it'll benefit another. Meaning, just because something works in other countries, and just because it's been proven to work perfectly fine and rather beneficial in other jurisdictions, doesn't mean it'll be beneficial for others, such as the US. My opponent also seems to believe that we are living back in 2000, when Y2K was still hip and trendy, and when movies like "White Chicks" didn't even come out, and when artists such as Whitney Houston were still alive, and Britney Spears were still civilized. Comparing statistical observations and representations from 2000 and correlating them with life in 2012 is unjustifiable. A lot of things -- including social maturation -- have occurred since then. I am not a criminal. I will never be a criminal. That is because I have a firm handle on logic. However, just becuase I am not a criminal now, doesn't mean I don't have the POTENTIAL to be if I am given control of a gun. After all, that is the very nature of humanity and psychology: people can be all kind and mature without power; but, as soon as they are given that previously formidable power and strength, they go all ballistic and become psychopaths. Read a psychology book. It'll instruct you on that type of psychological knowledge. Not all criminals choose defenseless men. Some are adventurous and want a challenge; others, are what you generalized, however those types of criminals are unfortunately sparse. My opponent's final contention is one of his most atrocious and rather confusing. He claims that "politicians who make these laws ignore the fact that the only people who would follow the law would be the people who obey the law is the law-abiding citizens while the criminals would either keep their weapons in hiding or purchase them off of a black market," which is both psychologically and logically incorrect. Like I have mentioned before with inflated proficience, just because someone is kind and psychologically developed before being given usage of a gun, doesn't mean they can remain such when granted usage of a gun. My opponent's quip, which is "Thus, increasing crime because you disarm the people who follow the law and leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals," is logically incorrect. Society isn't built on dominance. That is cynicism in its supremest of forms. Contention 2: Our Second Amendment Our Second Amendment, which is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."(1), does not grant us the right to bear arms. Back in the day, before internet and before celebrity drama made the headlines daily, and before presidents like Ronald Reagan were elected and presidents like Bill Clinton reigned, our government was unjust. They did not treat their citizens right. They taxed them one heck of a tax -- and without representation. So, yes, back then, they needed some type of defense. However, I would like to ask my readers -- and my opponent -- if our government, compared to when our country was first conceived, is unjust, and if we really need guns, other than to act all arrogant. I will now await my opponent's response, as well.Sources:1- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...