It is more sane and wise to support *some* gun control.

Thanks Con for another excellent round. 2nd Amendment While Con claims that it is NOT a debate from authority, he still provides a couple of STATE court cases. The ultimate interpreters of the U.S. Constitution are U.S. Supreme Court justices: http://www.constitution.org... There are plenty of cases here that show that the federal government DOES have the authority to regulate *some* arms: http://www.constitution.org... Practicality - 8th amendment My Counter: Increased penalties deter crime. While there are crimes and criminals for which it is difficult to establish a direct correlation, obviously some would prefer execution to life imprisonment. HOWEVER, if a criminal is facing 1 day in jail or a small fine, it is obvious (prima facie) that he would prefer the smaller penalty, and will only commit a larger infraction if the benefits outweigh the costs. The argument that increasing penalties, especially fines, violates the 8th Amendment is laughable, and clearly needs evidence in the form of U.S. Supreme Court cases. Black Markets Con did not counter my argument that there are weapons that sane wise people WANT to be expensive and difficult or impossible to receive. I would invite him to do so before the last round. Furthermore, his preposterous claim, very popular among weapons absolutists, that “if ‘guns’ [more broadly ‘weapons’ or ‘arms’ for this debate] are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is a semantic mistake used as demagogy. The whole reason for this debate was to get away from the ridiculous absolutist discussion. My hope is that most sane, wise people will agree that *some*, NOT *total* regulation of “arms”--bazookas, etc.--is not only necessary, but makes common sense. Let me refute this illogical statement by first inserting an assumed word in it; then I’ll provide it’s counter. “If [ALL] guns [‘weapons’] are outlawed, then only outlaws will have weapons.” It is both irrelevant and in fact silly when it’s assumed modifier is made clear. Weapons of self-defense, defined by government according to the limitations of the 2nd Amendment, will still be legal. This includes many types of firearms. The more accurate and logical statement would be: “If some weapons are outlawed for private ownership, only officers of the law, the military and criminals will have those weapons. Other weapons will still be legal for private citizens, including many types of [quite powerful and useful] firearms. WMD Con’s counter to my argument forwards his case not at all. The fact that some governments possess WMD does not mean that we should end the regulation of WMD. The logical extension of his argument is that since laws are broken, we should not have laws. Again, preposterous, if not a surprising argument from a position of absolutism. Alternatives/Mass Murder Con apparently misunderstood my argument, and goes on to state the obvious as a counter to something I did not claim: “If a man wanted to kill his wife, and someone took away his first choice of weapon, he would just find a different way to kill her. The desire to commit a crime does not derive from the tools; it derives from the criminal mind.” Let’s start to look at the weapons available to criminals and psychopaths to murder: their hands; a knife; a bomb; pistol; an automatic rifle; a baseball, softball (or vampire:) bat. True, it makes sense to regulate only some of the POSSIBLE items that may be used for murder. Due to the 2nd Amendment, and in honoring the right of a person to defend oneself, there are LIMITS as to what the government should be able to regulate. This, CLEARLY, does not mean we should give up on ALL efforts to keep massively powerful offensive weapons out of the hands of private citizens. Bazookas Just another type of weapon in same category as firearms. Extend my other arguments. I look forward to Con’s next round.