gun control is worthless

I agree that these controls will somewhat limit the opportunity for violent people to obtain gunsThen, essentially, you have conceded the debate topic to me. Unless you would like to spend the rest of the debate defending the notion that legislation which limits the opportunity for violent people to obtain guns is "worthless". To the contrary – it saves lives.but they will find a way if they are hell bent on getting a weaponWhere are you getting this information? You have yet to provide a single source for your outlandish claims. Anyone "hell bent" on something has a higher chance of achieving it, but what could possibly be "worthless" about making it a whole lot harder for them, and thus strongly discouraging those who are not, in fact, "hell bent"? The possibilities for one obtaining a gun illegally are endless.You mentioned three ways. Three ways. I agree with your license argumentThen you agree with at least part of my case for gun restriction. You have once more conceded the debate topic to me. If you want to be more successful at debating in the future, perhaps you should choose less inflexible and illogical resolutions.But even if a young adult in high school chooses to become violent, there won't be much in the stance of gun control to stop him. Again, where on earth is the evidence to support any of this? Can you in any way sympathize with the fact that the Columbine shooters may not have been as terribly effective if they hadn't been able to load their guns with bullets from WalMart?You say these laws are in place to protect rights yet you are trying to take the rights given by the second amendment away. This is what the people pushing for gun laws are trying to do. They are trying to limit our rights.The Constitution guarantees many rights, two of which are being discussed here. One right is gun ownership. Another right is life. Abolishing all gun restrictions may give lots more people the right to gun ownership, but will have severely negative consequences for millions of innocents' right to life. Somewhere in between supporting both rights we find a balance, but failing entirely to protect one right is simply not acceptable. Imagine if I tried to win the debate "Gun ownership is worthless". I dearly hope I'd lose.he wants to buy protection measures for himself In the form of a gun. He is denied this right given by the constitution because of gun lawsLet's have a closer look at the rights actually given by the 2nd amendment. Amendment II: 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.In discussing the Constitution, we should recall that it is a badly outdated document. If we stuck to the Founding Fathers' original intentions, blacks, women, Jews and the Irish would have no rights and slavery would be legal. I would like to make two major points about the historical context of the 2nd amendment which support the argument that gun regulation is not worthless.1. Self-Defense At the time the Constitution was written, America was a fledgling country with nothing even vaguely comparable to modern-day infrastructure. There were regular conflicts with Native Americans among settlers attempting westward expansion, and unsafe roads were riddled with bandits. America had no standing army and no navy. Dangerous wild animals still occupied vast expanses of uncharted territory. Irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army. Weapons for self-defense are a lot more pertinent in a society with no police, no infrastructural system of emergency medical attention and – I really can't stress this enough – no standing army and no navy. This explains the importance of the 2nd amendment. Nowadays, however, the regular American faces vastly less threats to their livelihood that can be shot down with bullets.2. Power is ResponsibilityAt the time the amendment was written, there were no guns, revolvers, or even bombs; the common weapon was the musket. Muskets are terrible at killing people compared to, say, semiautomatic pistols. I do not think the Founding Fathers were not intending the right to bear arms not to extend into the future as technology developed. However, the entire Western world became more aware of the negative impact of the industrialization of weapons technology following two devastating world wars. Countries signed treaties that would, for instance, outlaw the use of nerve gas. In his highly acclaimed recent book "The Sleepwalkers" about the events leading up to World War I, Christopher Clark explains that prior to the two World Wars, humanity was not aware of the horrific consequences of unfettered destructive power. He posits that the failure of the Cold War to culminate in any actual nuclear bombing shows a vastly different understanding of the violent power of modern technology, of which politicians before 1914 were ignorant. I am arguing that we are not only dealing with more advanced technology, but with far greater destructive power. The Founding Fathers protected freedom of speech in the first amendment, but as shown by the Wikileaks controversy and suicides induced by cyberbullying, greater power entails greater responsibility.Take this story for an example (this is a fictional story written to help prove my case)Anecdotal examples are subjective and biased. They have no place in a debate based on objective reasoning and logic. You have no proof to show that your fantasy story could possibly occur, or be of sufficient concern to discard laws that protect thousands of lives annually.We must focus on our security, not our guns.It should be fairly obvious to anyone that weapons of any kind threaten security.Across 30 years in America, from 1970–2000, there have been 3,400 deaths due to terrorism, and 900,000+ deaths due to gun violence. In 1996, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement. The result? For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than 100 deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres. The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33). Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates. One evaluation of the law concluded that: The rates of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the gun laws; there is no evidence of substitution for suicides or homicides. A more recent evaluation, which examined the differences across states, concluded that “the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise”. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu...These statistics confirm that gun regulation could save millions of lives, and a single life is invaluable. Gun regulation is not worthless.