Can you read the rest of the argument? There was more stated that go against what you said.

http://listverse.com/2013/12/12/10-arguments-against-gun-control/

According to the seventh point of that article, there was a school shooting where civilians ran to their car and got hunting rifles to fire at an attacker, who killed 12 people in that school. If the civilians didn't get their rifles, the shooter would've killed much more than 12 people.

Nonetheless, crime rates have still risen, even after banning guns.

http://listverse.com/2013/12/12/10-arguments-against-gun-control/

Please read through the first point listed in that article. It says that guns were caused to be banned by a shooting massacre where 16 young children were shot dead. When the guns were banned, the crime rate was 1.12 per 100,000. In 2010, the crime rates have slight risen to 1.23. 1.23 is what has been reported, but lots of people are saying that there have been many cases of under-reporting of many crimes.

I have noticed that Sarah was not in your opening statement video, and she has not been participating much in our arguments. Have we convinced her already?

Let's say that right now, the 2nd Amendment changes, and we can no longer access guns in America legally. The criminals who still own guns would not be willing to turn their guns in to the government. So if the 2nd Amendment were to be banned, that would leave all the criminals with guns, and all the innocent civilians with nothing to defend themselves with.

If fire-arms were banned right now, criminals would have access to them from other countries or from a black market. Also, let's not forget that guns are not the only way to kill someone, there are still knives, bombs, and many other things for mass-murder.

In what way would Adam Lanza have no access to guns? Even if there was no 2nd Amendment, there are still many ways to get a gun. He could get them from another country, or from a black market.

Ari, I am not sure if you have read the entire article or not, but according to this link, the 12-year-old brother did not take the gun to scare coyotes, but he just decided to sneak out a gun that his Sheriff-father owned to play with, as he thought it was unloaded.

http://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home

According to that website, 74% of criminals choose not to invade a house when the owners are there, as they fear the owner will have a gun to defend himself. Keep in mind that this would not be possible if the 2nd Amendment did not exist.

In what way is self-defense promoting citizens taking the law into their own hands? All they are doing is protecting themselves, and saving their lives. And as you stated, for every time a gun is used in self-defense in a home, there are 7 assaults or murders. The murders don't necessarily have to be caused by guns. 11 suicide attempts are connected to the 2nd Amendment in no way at all, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home could not be blamed on the government, but uneducated gun users. Also, let's not forget the fact that a gun still is being used for self-defense, and if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist, another innocent life would have been taken.

May you please direct me to the link where you got the facts of your second point from?

In what ways does it no longer work? Out of the many problems occurring in the world, how many countries have kept quiet about said problems. The countries are seeing it as either help and have a good reputation, or not help and not be thought of.

Guys, remember that we are arguing about whether the United States should be a worldwide police force, not whether we should help another country or not. There are many ways we can help a country, but it doesn't necessarily mean they have to help by risking the lives of their own men.

We are talking about a police force, not donating money towards another country. America can help another country in many different ways, they don't have to help by being a worldwide police force

Just because the U.S. has a strong military, it doesn't mean they need to risk some of their lives for something they have nothing to do with.

We aren't all the same, if we were there wouldn't be a war America should help with in the first place. Helping another country during a war isn't the only way to receive allies, and America seem to be doing fine by themselves in the first place.

The U.S.A. should not help any other country, unless they have close ties with them. For example, if a certain country helped the United States when they were in need, then I believe the U.S. should help them back. America is an independent country. There is no reason they should waste their own resources for a problem they have nothing to do with. If they were the cause of the war, that is something entirely different, but for this, the U.S. should mind their own problems.