Talk:Debate: Gun control
Click on the "+" tab above to add a comment, or just click "edit". Sign your comment by writing "~~~~" at the end. Join us on Facebook for broader community discussion.
Getting rid of guns isn't going to help lower the crime rate or even stop people from killing others. If someone has that strong of a will to kill someone then he or she is going to find a way. Also keep this in mind, the same person that is willing to shoot someone is also willing to run over them with a car or even stab them. So because of this are we going to get rid of cars and knifes? I don't think so. Why aren't we focusing on something like hit and runs or stabbing? Sure they aren't as bid as shootings but they still happen don't they?
"Individual Rights: Does an individual NOT have a "right" to gun ownership?
Right to BEAR ARMS is an individual not collective right. In the court case Heller v District of Columbia the court ruled that the right to bear arms has always existed and that the court case only affirms that right. In addition, the right to bear arms is not dependent on militia service, or that the right is individual and not collective. The six plantifs of Heller v District of Columbia were thus now legally able to own previously forbidden firearms. In response the city leaders reclassified handguns into the same category as machine guns. Plus why would any person not need more then 4 handguns and more then 6 guns total? doesn't matter if your a hunter or not."
Does this make sense to anyone? Besides the grammatical errors, doesn't it support the other side...?