Revisiting Virginia Tech: An argument about arms

I would like to start the debate by telling you that while reading your other debates I remain quite impressed, you are a very intelligent person. This was the primary reason for me starting this debate; I am rather neutral on this matter. I'd like to say Good luck. Pleasantries done, let the debate begin! For my position, I would not like to argue the lobbyists' stance on the guns themselves, but the lobbyists' stance on stronger gun control. I've never really understood the argument from the anti-gun lobby for any number of reasons. It's so easy to blame it on the gun itself rather than where the blame really lies -- the person wielding it incorrectly. (www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18pistols.html_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin) Guns are a bittersweet thing; they are our shield, but the opposing sword. Although, I'd like to say to your statement "we seem to forget that murder was around long before their inception and would conceivably continue long after their destruction"; with the upcoming age of military intelligence and research I believe that even guns have been forgotten as the main killers, we live in the nuclear age. This is the cycle of death and war; the continuous research for the edge. (This was an irrelevant point to an extent, but I didn't really understand what to say to your point starting with "It's a strange dichotomy"). The gun is no longer being blamed, but the system that gives the guns. We must look into how guns are acquired, and insure that more challenging psychological testing insures to protect citizens from mentally unstable people. The system is broken, and the lobbyists are correct in stating that. I would like to give you a compliment on the fine analogy, but at the same time mention that the situations are different because the strict testing needed to acquire a driving license and a more lenient system in acquiring a firearm. In your case, we blame the DMV for not noticing the problems within the driver, although we cannot stop all homicides due to poor gun control it should be noted that the anti-gun lobbyists' stance of a stronger policy on gun control would stop many deaths (As does the DMV's testing in stopping vehicular homicide). An anti-gun lobbyist would push to make the acquiring of a gun have stronger psychological testing (Doing so would show Cho's many psychological problems). Also, a side note on the VT shooting- *I'd rather you not try to debate me on this, just mentioning something interesting* One reason that Cho's rampage went unstopped was because of VT's "Safe Zone" policy which kept staff unarmed. Anti-gun lobbyists do not try to take away guns, but make the acquiring of guns more challenging so people are protected. Your stance on not allowing these lobbyists to make regulations stricter actually increases their chance of being harmed (because those who care to harm will be able to get a gun easier). Anti-gun lobbyists are preventing tyranny through their advances on gun control so that armed conflict has less of a chance of occurrence. In conclusion, my opponent is somewhat right in stating we must blame psychological illness, but even more so it must be understood that there should be testing to insure that those who suffer from psychological illness are not permitted to acquire a gun.