Repeal The 200 Year Old Second Amendment - NO Civilian GUNS USA - Bann Guns

My opponent stated I did not refute all of his points but I did because my own points refute his and blow a hole in his case. He also only attacked the matter of a stronger database that flags more people.Also, he did not answer in of the questions in my previous argument so therefore I will assume that one he does not know how many people own guns in America, two he has no proposal for a plan to put in place if we were to repeal the second amendment, three he does not know what actions need to take place in order to repeal an amendment, four he thinks we should repeal all the two-hundred-year-old amendments. He also came off as extremely rude when in called me immature and said my writing style was comparative to that of the mentally unstable which is rude and out of bounds in a civil debate and shows terrible sportsmanship. Since he wants a detailed refute I will give one. As for my opponents first, second, and third points, while this was created in a different time period it is still relevant because we still hunt and some of us are trained to handle firearms from an early age to prepare to go into the work filed with the police department, different military branches, and organizations. Also, how are we holding back our society when we are one of the leading nations in intelligence. We are not a retarded nation we are a nation that continues to move forward and set the standers. As for point four, this is where my opponent's case starts to get hazy because he says " Grow up enough or die young.", and then he goes into how guns are just lying around. First off you have a license to buy a gun and to sell a gun, surprise, you also have to have a license to sell guns.This leads into my sub-point that we should tighten gun control and make more limits on who gets a gun. Also, I am not suggesting there be a so-called " dumbed register" I am suggesting database that flags criminals and potential killers. Also with in-store security to recognize the mentally unstable there would not be a problem with the next door neighbor becoming a killer. Also with heightened security in public places the killer would be immediately recognized because they are trained to monitor body language. As for the worry over people having access to this database I am proposing it would only be for law enforcement agencies and gun sellers because every gun seller has a right to know who they are selling a gun to in order to protect the community and every officer the right to try and keep criminals getting guns aging to commit crimes. Point five is invalid and has no source or makes any sense in the slightest unless he suggesting they buy all the guns back and destroy them. Then it is simply a fantasy because over an estimated 156% of the population own guns. The idea that all of these people would be reachable and happy to hand over there guns is not reality. I have already attacked my opponent's sixth point is not clear in some parts, but when he says we can't protect our selves now how does he expect us to better protect our selves without guns and with the criminals getting guns. Also, this plays into my point of heightened security, which he did not refute, which if there was more security in public places mass shootings would not ocure becuase the security could disarm the killer. For your seventh point which, I have already refuted and given multiple ideas to help stop this I will say it all aging. If we create a database to flag criminals and the mentally unstable that in self would significantly lessen the number of mass shootings. Since you interpreted to mean to leave all the up the phycologist let me clarify.Yes, part of it would be left to them in the issue that they start seeing someone who they deem unstable and then restricts their gun license. When people are being tested for their gun license there would be a test to determine if the person was indeed stable enough to own a gun. Also, we should place security were guns are sold who can read body language to determine if someone was going to commit a murder of any type. Making more constraints on what type of guns people can own as well will make a difference also. Moving own to my opponent's eighth point which is we no longer have a militia or need to counter-attack criminals. while we no longer have a militia people still enjoy collecting, hunting, and shooting for sport. As for we no longer need to counter-attack criminals what about when an armed person breaks into your house and your home and intends on killing ou would you feel safer to know you could disarm them or would you feel more comfortable knowing that you are at their mercy. I will now briefly go over my points that I have already defended. One, banning guns is not the answer is people will simply turn to other means of getting guns and make it easier in turn instead of harder for the mentally unstable to get a gun. Two, by introducing a new amendment requires stricter background checks and gun laws that adequately deal with the problems we face today. Three, by tightening security in public places, were these mass shootings happen will lower them significantly. I have defended and expanded on each of these points above and ask that the voters remember the weighing mechanism is on balance.