CLOSING STATEMENT

After all the points we have discussed and argued about i think we should remove the 2nd amendment and think of a new amendment to replace. Thank you for your time to argue about this amendment.

There is many ways citizens can die, but wouldn't you want to prevent most of the causes of death as much as possible?

In the beginning of you dispute you just supported us saying how having guns can injure yourself and can cause deaths/murders, the percentages are so close in numbers that i would rather no put my safety in risk just to stop crime, i would let the police do their job and stop crimes.

The 2nd Amendment is only 27 words: “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.” But the NRA always relates to the last 14 words, which is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on “well-regulated militia” and “security of a free State” to rule that Second Amendment rights to their states militias – nowadays known as the National Guards.

http://fair.org/article/gun-control-the-nra-and-the-second-amendment/

n the book “ At the Brink” written by John R. Lott jr. In Chapter 3 he recalls a conversation that he had with Barak Obama in the University of Chicago Law school. He says that Barrak told him "I don't believe people should be able to own guns."

In that chapter John R. Lott jr stated that:

In 1996, Obama supported a ban on handguns

In 1998, he supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns

In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down nearly all gun stores

So you are taking an opinion of children? to decide wither there should be guns or not?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 31,672 people died by guns in 2010.

In a 1998 in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery they found that every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gun-science-proves-arming-untrained-citizens-bad-idea/

Yale professors Ian Ayres (PhD) and John Donohue ( PhD) researched and found out that in 2005 53% of the suicides involved a firearm.

http://secondamendment1.weebly.com/pros-and-cons.html

"The second amendment reduced the number of crimes due to the fact that everyone has the right to defend themselves." I would like to argue this point since according to a study by Charles Branas (PhD), he found that people “carrying a gun for self-defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than an assault victim without a gun. He is an (American Journal of Public Health)

http://secondamendment1.weebly.com/pros-and-cons.html

The second amendment states 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. After doing research we disagree with it because most murders in america are caused by guns. Today we will show you all the pros of gun control. In today’s world most murders are caused by guns, there are school shootings, mall shootings, street shootings! How many more murders can we take? Our first point is that a lot of unnecessary murders occur due to lack of gun control, second there is no need for civilians to own guns if the police is doing their job, and lastly when the amendment was created the military wasn’t as powerful as it is now and so citizens always had to defend one another.

You go girl. Go reck them, oh yeahhh, GET REECCKKEEDD. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who do you think you are, 1 country which doesn't let women be with men. If you notice U.S.A is always starting or always in war, and they owe so much war money, and you decide to support what they do for their army. WELL DONE, think again.

Even though men are stronger, if women go to war that means they face the same battle, and in battle they will have to be together as one family, so they should be used to working with men from before a war.

No, they should not be separated because if both are going to go through war they face the same battle together. There isn't two battles one for women one for men.