Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: THW allow citizens to protect themselves

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Here we are looking at safety and future life of the American.It is well documented in the medical literature that regulation of guns benefits the public health. For example, a careful studydemonstrated that the 1976 restrictive handgun law in the District of Columbia, which was the focus of the Heller case, resulted in an immediate decline of approximately 25% in homicides and suicides by firearms, but there was no such decline in adjacent areas that did not have restrictive laws. With the weakening of handgun regulations, we are very concerned about the health of the public, especially young people, whose safety is disproportionately affected by firearms. We have a heightened concern about suicide, in which impulsivity may have an important role; ready access to a gun may significantly increase the risk of completion.We believe that a sensible level of regulation is essential. There is no language in the Constitution that would limit regulation. Indeed, the preamble to the Second Amendment includes the phrase "well-regulated" in reference to the use of firearms by militias. Given the diversity of geography and population in the United States, lawmakers throughout the country need the freedom and flexibility to apply gun regulations that are appropriate to their jurisdictions. The Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller may greatly reduce the latitude that legislators have had in setting firearm regulations for their localities. With the Supreme Court's decision and the expectation of a substantial reduction in gun regulation, we are poised to witness another epidemiologic study of the effect of regulation on gun violence. With this experiment, which may play out in many American cities, we will know in the coming years whether the overturned laws reduced death and injury from handguns. The Court has heard the arguments and made its decision; we will now learn the human ramifications of this landmark case.

Contents

[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Background and Context of the Debate:

The idea of gun control and the need to defend one's self is not a new one. Much has been said on the subject, even before guns were invented. The need to protect you and yours is as natural as breathing. Of course, as with all natural instincts, there will be those attempting to legislate it away. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law which required heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than in 1981.


Argument #1

The Court´s 5-4 decision read: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The framers of the constitution understood the necessity for American citizens to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, our society has been so influenced by those on the left, that many of us now believe that we should give up that right...Thus leaving ourselves, our homes, and even our loved-ones at the mercy of the criminals. You see, gun laws only affect the law-abiding.


Here we are looking at safety and future life of the American.It is well documented in the medical literature that regulation of guns benefits the public health. For example, a careful studydemonstrated that the 1976 restrictive handgun law in the District of Columbia, which was the focus of the Heller case, resulted in an immediate decline of approximately 25% in homicides and suicides by firearms, but there was no such decline in adjacent areas that did not have restrictive laws. With the weakening of handgun regulations, we are very concerned about the health of the public, especially young people, whose safety is disproportionately affected by firearms. We have a heightened concern about suicide, in which impulsivity may have an important role; ready access to a gun may significantly increase the risk of completion.We believe that a sensible level of regulation is essential. There is no language in the Constitution that would limit regulation. Indeed, the preamble to the Second Amendment includes the phrase "well-regulated" in reference to the use of firearms by militias. Given the diversity of geography and population in the United States, lawmakers throughout the country need the freedom and flexibility to apply gun regulations that are appropriate to their jurisdictions. The Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller may greatly reduce the latitude that legislators have had in setting firearm regulations for their localities. With the Supreme Court's decision and the expectation of a substantial reduction in gun regulation, we are poised to witness another epidemiologic study of the effect of regulation on gun violence. With this experiment, which may play out in many American cities, we will know in the coming years whether the overturned laws reduced death and injury from handguns. The Court has heard the arguments and made its decision; we will now learn the human ramifications of this landmark case.





Argument #2

let us consider the threats the our citizens go would go through if they can not help themselves.The Laws which prohibit law-abiding citizens from possessing and carrying firearms are not lost on criminals. It is no coincidence that in the 32 years since the District of Columbia placed a ban on the ownership of handguns, the number of crimes to individuals (rape, robbery, murder) soared. Criminals are also keenly aware of the prospect of an armed citizen and will almost always steer clear of potential victims who may be armed. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law which required heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than in 1981. The idea of gun control and the need to defend one's self is not a new one. Much has been said on the subject, even before guns were invented. The need to protect you and yours is as natural as breathing. Of course, as with all natural instincts, there will be those attempting to legislate it away.





The number of homicide increases when there are arms in abundance.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in concert with health authorities across the country, keeps careful records on the number of injuries and deaths that result from handgun use. In 2005, the last year with complete data, there were more than 30,000 deaths and 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms.About one quarter of the nonfatal injuries and a tenth of the deaths were in children and adolescents. To place these numbers in perspective, 10 times as many Americans die each year from firearms as have died in the Iraq war during the past 5 years. Firearm injuries represent a major public health problem that seems certain to be exacerbated with less handgun regulation. It is well documented in the medical literature that regulation of guns benefits the public health. For example, a careful study demonstrated that the 1976 restrictive handgun law in the District of Columbia, which was the focus of the Heller case, resulted in an immediate decline of approximately 25% in homicides and suicides by firearms, but there was no such decline in adjacent areas that did not have restrictive laws.






Argument #3

At the end of this debate let us close by showing you what the great minds have said about gun control. These are the people you have inspired many of us and we have learned more from them. George Orwell said "Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon -- so long as there is no answer to it -- gives claws to the weak",Cicero Said "Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians, by necessity, communities by tradition; and the lesson inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself. They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons lives from violence of any and every kind by all means within their power" and Richard Henry Lee (a framer of the Bill of Rights): "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." this shows clearly that we have a right to defend ourselves.The fact is, the police cannot be everywhere at once. If you choose not to defend yourself or your family, that is your absurd decision and I wish you luck. However, for those of us who choose to exercise our Second Amendment right…Remember the old adage: "It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!"








With the Supreme Court's decision and the expectation of a substantial reduction in gun regulation, we are poised to witness another epidemiologic study of the effect of regulation on gun violence. With this experiment, which may play out in many American cities, we will know in the coming years whether the overturned laws reduced death and injury from handguns. The Court has heard the arguments and made its decision; we will now learn the human ramifications of this landmark case.






See also

External links and resources



Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.