Debate: Gun control

Should laws be passed to limit gun ownership further?

Background and Context of Debate:

Gun laws vary widely from country to country, so this topic focuses upon arguments for laws restricting the right of private individual to possess guns. Particular debates might centre upon different categories of guns (for example automatic weapons, handguns or shotguns), licensing requirements for ownership, the right to carry concealed weapons, or requirements that manufacturers increase the safety features on their weapons. The USA is exceptional in protecting the right to own firearms in the Second Amendment to its Constitution, and gun control has been a major issue in American politics over the last few years, partly due to a series of tragic massacres involving children.

Individual Rights: Does an individual NOT have a "right" to gun ownership?

Yes

• Gun-control laws would better protect the "right to life" since they may reduce the numbers of gun fatalities in society The "right to life" in this case is weighed against the putative "right to bear arms," a right promulgated in the Second Amendment to the United States Constiution. Lives are lost when guns are prevalent in society. For this reason, strong laws should restrict and control access to guns.

• There is not an unlimited "right to bear arms" in US law There are multiple arguments here.
  • The second amendment was intended by the founding fathers as primarily a collective right (particularly for states) to gather and form malitias, rather than an individual right to bear arms. The primary purpose of this was to ensure the ability to combat heavy handed tyranny and too much centralized power, rather than an issue of some more abstract right of individuals to gun ownership.
  • Societies obviously restrict the ownership of arms, as citizens can't possess bazookas, so the extent of state control is open for debate.

No

• A "right" to unfettered gun-ownership exists as a safeguard for citizens against domestic tyranny Gun ownership allows citizens to check governmental and police abuses. This argument rests on a suspicion that police will act irresponsibility and brutally if citizens' gun ownership is restricted, and police are given a monopoly over armed force. Without such a dominating monopoly, police may be disinclined to abuse the law and individual liberties.

• A government may be justified in adopting lax gun-control laws as a means to national defense Lax gun control laws and the diffusion of weapons in a society, better enable a country to defend itself. In particular, it may allow for a country to mobilize forces in self defense. With guns already distributed within society, rapid mobilization would be adided. Guns could be rallied in an emergency, instead of having to wait for the manufacture and/or distribution of weapons. Gun owners would also already be relatively trained in the handling of their weapons, some even possible having become marksman. Thus, a government should permit private gun ownership as a means to the end of emergency national defense.

Self-defense - Is self-defense a bad reason for gun ownership?

Yes

• The protection of property is not a good justification for yielding a lethal weapon

• Wielding a gun in self-defense only works if the assailant believes the threat is credible: The argument that owning a gun for the sake of detering would be burglars is just since in these instances there is no will or intent to take human life is specious at best.

• The legal possession of guns by individual that have no intent to use them would have not deterrent effect.

• If it is in fact wrong to take a life in order to protect property, it is unclear why it would be just to threaten to take a life for the same purpose.

No

• A citizen has a "right" to guns as a means to self-defense: Many groups argue that a citizen should have the "right" to defend themselves, and that a gun is frequently the only thing that can provide for such protection. Certainly, all societies have crime, and all citizens are at risk of being the victims of crime. Since governments are inherently incapable of fully protecting their citizens from crime, people have a "right" to protect themselves. Though some governments might do a better job than others in protecting their citizens, individuals themselves should not be deprived the ability to adopt the necessary means to defend themselves.

• Gun restrictions and bans disadvantage citizens against armed criminals

Crime: Does stringent gun-control decrease violence and crime?

Yes

• Reducing the prevalence of guns reduces crime Legal boundaries for gun-ownership may not provide sufficient social protections, as many criminals steal legally-owned guns, and commit violent crimes or murder with them. These criminals would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were generally less prevalent in society. In other words, it is argued that the world would be safer with fewer guns, and laws that lead to fewer guns by restricting the right of gun-ownership.

• Registered guns can often be accessed by non-registered individuals

• Legal gun owners sometimes turn their gun on others: Legal gun-owners frequently commit murder with their legally-owned gun. This happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.[1] This may indicate that legal gun-ownership is not a sufficient social protection against the lethal potential of guns.

• Guns make suicide too easy argument: Some groups maintain that there is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because gun owners are more depressive, but because the means of quick and effective suicide is easily to hand.

• Households with guns have a much greater risk of homicide: In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.[2]

• self-defense with a gun is rare and is outweighed by the general benefits of a reduction in guns

• Burglars often break into houses to steal guns

• Fatal exchanges often occur because an innocent person decides to draw out a gun on an assailant

• Publics most exposed to crime support greater restrictions on gun ownership

No

• "Guns don’t kill people – people kill people" The argument here is that sociological factors are more important than the availability of weapons in determining gun violence and deaths in societies.

• Citizen gun ownership acts as a deterrent against criminals If criminal fears that their potential victims possess guns and can harm or kill them, they will be less likely to commit crimes and take the risks.

• Criminals will find a way to commit crimes and violence with or without guns Guns are not the only means of violence and crime. Determined criminals will find a way to do what they intend. Depriving guns to criminals will not have an effect on crime and violence.

• Low homicide and crime rates are not a direct cause of low gun ownership

• Because guns used in murders and crime are not usually legally held or registered, efforts to enhance gun-protection through legal means are futile: Some have pointed out that in the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. It is further noted that many of these illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, rather than being stolen from registered owners. Gun-control measures will not affect this major body of weaponry that is illicitly held in societies. This extends to the following section in regards to enforceability, but is relevant here in regards to the consequences of the nonenforceable of gun laws.

• Gun restrictions and bans disadvantage citizens against armed criminals

Social: Are greater gun control measures important culturally and socially?

Yes

• There is actually not a strong historical culture in the United States surrounding gun ownership and rights

No

• Just because gun control has been misused in the past Does NOT mean that it will be misused now...
• "Racist gun control", Geoff Metcalf, 1999.

Accidents: Would decreasing gun ownership reduce accidental deaths?

Yes

• Gun owners are at a very high risk of accidental self-inflicted shootings:

No

• Competent gun-owners should take the proper precautions.
• Education on safe gun ownership can be improved and risks reduced.

Enforceability: Are gun control laws enforceable?

Yes

• Examples of police prejudice in the enforcement of the law are rare and don't justify more lax gun-control

• It is easier to enforce limited gun-controls

No

• Effective gun control is infeasible

• Argument that the failure of the British police to crack-down on arms-trafficking is an example of the enforceability of gun-restriction laws: Don B. Kates, Jr., "Why a Civil Libertarian Opposes Gun Control", 1976 - "British police, unhampered by the Fourth Amendment, have nevertheless been unable to stem illegal arms traffic-even with the special search and other powers which successive gun prohibition bills have given them. The British army has been unable to enforce gun laws in Northern Ireland, even with mass street searches and random raids in homes."

Economic benefits? Is gun control economically beneficial?

Yes

• Lax gun control laws are economically costly

No

• Gun sports have economic benefits Field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection.

Hand-gun ban: Should hand guns be banned? (See also: Debate:DC handgun ban)

Yes

• Hand-guns are frequently used in crime because they can be concealed

• Hand-gun restrictions would not put extra strain on individual privacy laws:

No

• Hand-guns can be carried on one's person, and thus have a unique and valuable protective capacity

Automatic weapon ban: Should automatic weapons be banned?

Yes

• Machine guns are too capable of inflicting massive casualties

No

When psychology terror amounts in an individual, the physiological response of the body may shut down to prevent the body from experiencing any pain--In this instance, it is pertinent to have, as protection, a machine that works automatically to save the owner and hinder the imminent attack.

Guns as sport: Are gun sports a poor justification for gun-ownership?

Yes

• Gun sports are socially desensitizing and damaging. Shooting as a sport has the potential to desensitize people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorizes and legitimizes unnecessary gun ownership.

• Only a small minority want to protect firearms for sport

No

• Guns sports should be protected and justify gun ownership Shooting is sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated.

• Gun sports have economic benefits Field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection.

Concealed-carry: Should it be illegal for citizens to conceal weapons?

Yes

• Open-carry laws generally deny citizens with gun permits the right to carry conceal their weapon when out in society.

No

• When citizens carry concealed weapons, criminals fear the risks of committing crimes and are deterred

Pro/con organizations

Yes

• Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
• Gun Owners of America
• JPFO
• Law Enforcement Alliance of America
• Liberty Belles
• National Rifle Association
• Pink Pistols
• Second Amendment Foundation
• Second Amendment Sisters
• Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

No

• Americans for Democratic Action
• Americans for Gun Safety Foundation
• Brady Campaign
• Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
• Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
• League of Women Voters
• American Hunters and Shooters Association

Pro/con resources

Yes

No

Motions:

• This House calls for stricter controls on gun ownership
• This House believes there is no right to bear arms
• This House would prise the musket from Charlton Heston’s cold dead hands

See also

• Debate:DC handgun ban
• Debate:Armed pilots in airplanes
• Debate:Hunting for sport
• Debate:Right to carry guns laws
• Debate:US Second Amendment
• Debate:US Second Amendment, authority over states
• Debate:US Second Amendment, militia as government regulated

External links

• NRA (National Rifle Association of America)
• ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union): Gun Control
• Hodgdon (Gun Control Network, UK)
• JURIST (The Legal Education Network guide to Gun Laws, Gun Control & Gun Rights)
• Coalition for Gun Control (Canada)

Books:

• The Changing Politics of Gun Control ^{John Bruce}
• Gun Control (Current Controversies) ^{Charles Cozic}
• Gun Control (Opposing Viewpoints Digests) ^{Terry O'Neill}
• Guns and Crime (At Issue (San Diego, Calif.).) ^{Tamara Roleff}