Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Gun control

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 12:35, 21 September 2008 (edit)
Little Herman (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 12:37, 21 September 2008 (edit)
Little Herman (Talk | contribs)
(No)
Next diff →
Line 242: Line 242:
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====No==== ====No====
-I really am sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but hand-guns are not the only weapon that can be concealed. Before I go any further I would like to say something to the person who wrote: Hand-guns are frequently used in crime because they can be concealed. Well, should the government ban cars because in 2003 there were 42,643 fatalities due to car accidents. A car can be concealed. I also want to say something to the person who wrote: Hand-gun restrictions would not put extra strain on individual privacy laws. YEAH........RIGHT, it would me. That would be infringing on my rights. There are plenty of restrictions on guns as we "speak," but there is still gun crime. I hate to tell you this, but even if you ban guns completely there will still be gun crime and the people who want to kill someone will just find another "object." Beatings and knife realated crime will sky rocket and people ould probably even go as far as molitov cocktails. My whole point is people will ALWAYS find something. +I really am sorry to burst any one's bubble, but hand-guns are not the only weapon that can be concealed. Before I go any further I would like to say something to the person who wrote: Hand-guns are frequently used in crime because they can be concealed. Well, should the government ban cars because in 2003 there were 42,643 fatalities due to car accidents. A car can be concealed. I also want to say something to the person who wrote: Hand-gun restrictions would not put extra strain on individual privacy laws. YEAH........RIGHT, it would me. That would be infringing on my rights. There are plenty of restrictions on guns as we "speak," but there is still gun crime. I hate to tell you this, but even if you ban guns completely there will still be gun crime and the people who want to kill someone will just find another "object." Beatings and knife related crime will sky rocket and people would probably even go as far as molotov cocktails. My whole point is people will ALWAYS find something.

Revision as of 12:37, 21 September 2008

Should laws be passed to limit gun ownership further?

Editing tasks you can help with

  • Two debates have arguments that apply to this debate and that can be copied over: Debate:US Second Amendment, Debate:DC handgun ban. Once they are copied and pasted into this article, links to this parent debate need to be made on the argument pages.
  • This debate could use some images.
  • This debate could use pro/con videos.
  • This article needs an expanded pro/con resources section.
  • This debate needs more or the supporting quotations found in the argument pages to be on this page as well.

Contents

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

  • 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 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.


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.
  • 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]



No

Gun control would increase the demand for guns in the black market. Increased sales make the black market a very profitable business for criminals, thereby increasing criminal activy.

  • 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.


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

Yes



No




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

Yes

  • 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.


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



No



Economic benefits? Is gun control economically beneficial?

Yes




No




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

Yes



No

I really am sorry to burst any one's bubble, but hand-guns are not the only weapon that can be concealed. Before I go any further I would like to say something to the person who wrote: Hand-guns are frequently used in crime because they can be concealed. Well, should the government ban cars because in 2003 there were 42,643 fatalities due to car accidents. A car can be concealed. I also want to say something to the person who wrote: Hand-gun restrictions would not put extra strain on individual privacy laws. YEAH........RIGHT, it would me. That would be infringing on my rights. There are plenty of restrictions on guns as we "speak," but there is still gun crime. I hate to tell you this, but even if you ban guns completely there will still be gun crime and the people who want to kill someone will just find another "object." Beatings and knife related crime will sky rocket and people would probably even go as far as molotov cocktails. My whole point is people will ALWAYS find something.




Automatic weapon ban: Should automatic weapons be banned?

Yes




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

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.



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

Concealed-carry defined: Concealed-carry laws generally offer the privilege to citizens with gun permits to conceal their weapon on their person out in society.
END

Yes

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



No

As long as the person with the gun had a carry permit it should be 110% legal. It would be dumb and irresponsible to ban "law abiding" citizens the "right" to protect themselves in public. Of coarse there are bad apples that do commit crimes, but that doesn't mean you should punish the others.
 For example, hypothetically thinking, you have a criminal who has had it, so this criminal goes out and decides he'll go into this restaurant and kill everyone he can.  He doesn't care about going to jail because he has a pretty good escape plan. As he is walking up to the door, a thought hits him like a ton of bricks, the chances of someone in there having a pistol is pretty great. 
 now this example is just the opposite of the one above.
 you have a criminal who has had it, so this criminal goes out and decides he'll go into this restaurant and kill everyone he can. He doesn't care about going to jail because he has a pretty good escape plan. He knows that more than likely he will be the only one with a gun, so if he is careful he can smoothly get in and get out. So, he walks up to the door and lets himself in. 
 I am not saying that when he gets the thought about someone in there having a gun, that he will stop completely, but at least he had a second thought. Where as in the second example he went right in. Keep in your mind that the guy who has committed some sort of crime before, probably isn't scared to do something else.   





Pro/con organizations

Yes


No


Pro/con resources

Yes

No

Motions:

  • This House calls for stricter controls on gun ownership.
  • This House recognizes that there is a right to bear arms, but that semi-automatic and automatic weapons should be banned.

See also

External links

Books:


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.