Gun Control Debate

I think you are lying. Please quote your statistics.

An interesting proposal. I have a few questions, however.

You suggest that we implement mandatory registration of all firearms. How do you expect to implement this? How would you enforce registration of all currently unregistered firearms owned by civillians? Would you require a registration of absolutely all firearms, including collectable firearms and historical objects used for display only? What benefit do you believe will come of firearms registration? Please cite references to back up any claims that you make regarding the benefits of firearms registration (for example, some countries and even some states in the US require registration of firearms; cite positive events resulting from this registration).

You also suggest registration of ammunition. How would this work? Would each individual ammunition round, ammunition boxes, ammunition cases, or something else? How would this ammunition be registered, and how exactly do you believe that this registration would benefit society? Again, cite research or existing examples to back up your claims. Also, explain how ammunition manually created by amateur reloaders would be regulated.

Instant background checks, through NICS, are already available. What flaws do you see in other tracking systems? You suggest that felons should not have access to firearms; are you unaware that federal law already prohibts felons from posessing firearms? If so, why do you propose something that is already a part of US law? How would misdemeanors and juvenile convictions “count against” someone’s “record”? Please be specific.

What kind of “gun safety” course would you want to see required? What cost for such safety courses do you believe would be reasonable?

What sort of “general education” do you believe is necessary? How would this education be delivered? How do you believe that this education would reduce the crime rate? Please be specific.

How do you believe that handgrip ID tagging would work? What of guns that do not have handgrips? How would this prevent stolen guns from being used? How do you believe that it will be impossible to disable the handgrip ID device no matter how much time is spent in the attemtp, while at the same time making sure that the device is reliable enough that it will never fail to allow an authorized user to fire the firearm on demand? How would an individual who wished to allow another to fire his or her gun do so? How would gun ranges allow for rental of firearms equipped with these ID devices?

How do you propose forcing uniform firearms laws across all states? Why should state laws regarding firearms be uniform, but not all other laws? Given that you are essentially proposing that all gun laws apply everywhere, what gun laws should be applied? For example, California and New Jersey both have enacted “assault weapons” bans, but Kentucky should not. Should California and New Jersey be fored to repeal their bans? Why do you propose overriding state sovergnty on only the firearms issue, but no other?

How do you propose enacting and enforcing a handgun ban? Why do you claim that it will not be easier for most people to obtain handguns if your other proposals are enacted? How would you compensate the millions of handgun owners in the country for the loss of their handguns? Please calculate the total cost required for compensation and explain how these owners will be compensated. How will this ban be enforced? What of those who refuse to relinquish their handguns? What do you believe that a handgun ban will accomplish? Please be specific, and support any claims with references.

For mandatory registration of all firearms and ammo everyone who bought a gun or ammo would have to fill out registration forms. If someone already has a gun they would occasionally need ammo. This would force them to be registered. Even if people who have a gun get away from the registration, they will eventually die off or get caught.

I’ll explain more later

I failed to address this earlier. You claimed “In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, then you clearly don’t need a gun.”. Your conclusion is not logical. The majority, if not all, of those 98% of cases involved an attacker being deterred by the threat and presence of a firearm. As such, you cannot honestly claim that the firearm was not “needed” for defense, as without the firearm the deterrant would not have existed and the attacker would not have stopped.

It would appear that you have not carefully considered the conclusions that you have drawn. This would suggest that your proposal may not be founded upon entirely sound reasoning.

hold on while i digg up more facks to show you.

check out my other debatable articles

You offer this statistic, “[H]omes with firearms are 2.7 times more likely to have a victim of homicide in their house,” but have not provided a causal link between the occurances, thus committing the post hoc fallacy. Where is your proof that people in these houses are killed because people there have guns? I believe it is much more likely they have guns for protection since their house is in a bad neighborhood, has been broken into, or the like. They may have an even higher rate of being murder victims when nobody has a gun to protect themselves and children from marauding criminals. These results may also have been skewed by the statistics from the homes of these criminals, involving the co-incidence of owning guns and being a victim of homicide because of thug mentality, gang membership, dealing drugs, et cetera. These things go together and law-abiding gun owners don’t need interference in their lives in the form of gun control because of the depraved behavior and lifestyle of this type of person.

Second, your arguments on banning handguns are simplistic. You have neglected to address this inevitable response: If all handguns were banned, the only people with them would be criminals. Those same thugs wouldn’t have any trouble getting their hands on whatever guns they feel like having. They already break other laws with impunity, so what do you think could stop them from breaking the laws you propose? Meanwhile, innocent people like my family would be at their mercy. We would have to risk everything to keep a gun for protection in our house, and my husband and I would have to make a terrible choice, risk being helpless in the event of an attack or break-in, or risk going to prison, separated from our innocent children, one of who is a nursing baby. I have great trouble believing anybody would want us to have no fighting chance against a person who would break into our house and have us put our hands up and beg for mercy at least for our children, while the police might arrive eventually.

do u guyz understand how many people that still have along way of years to their innocent lives r dying???? Itz not funny, seeing to the fact that people r cruely laughing saying that this is not a big deal. I’m doing a debate @ school and seeing to the fact that some people think that this is a “funny” deal, itz just not right. Some poeple have to change their attitudes

It comes down to common sense. If arming for self-protection worked, the US would be the safest country in the world – and I can assure you that it is not. The american gun lobby likes to make up stats but it you cannot handle the thought that this truth might just export a dangerous and perhaps contagious notion: that gun control saves lives.”

Oh yeah and one more thing you say, make the person responsible for pulling the trigger, that would then mean you have a handgun you pull the trigger you kill the felon or the kid behind the felon oops you missed, then you are responsible then? No did I hear no oh you were just defending yourself that makes you a hero then.what ever happened to thou shall not kill or turn the other cheek? does not apply then to vigilantes now does it.

Founding forefathers just love it.Jefferson, upon whom so much of the nation’s ideology is based, apparently experienced no inner struggle with slavery. He consistently argued against the intelligence of slaves and free blacks alike and maintained that slavery was both necessary and moral. Washington’s occasional discomfort with the business of slavery, but his total comfort with the convenience of free labor. Washington’s father was also the likely father of a child born to a mixed-race indentured servant, and Washington’s father-in-law is widely known to have fathered a child with a black slave. Yet despite his professed distaste for the institution, Washington forced the sale of slaves when he foreclosed on a neighbor’s property. “The money arising from the slaves to be paid to the hands of George Washington, Esq.could it be there was more money in politics sounds suspicious.

Over the years we have had various assassinations and attempts, like those of Kennedy and Reagan. And there are consistently a multitude of horrifying massacres among our children, like the events that unfolded in Columbine and Virginia Tech. These random acts of deadly violence from one man to another have plagued society, and continued over the centuries without any true stability. They say there is gun control, yet guns consistently remain less regulated than automobiles. NRA members, lobbyists, and gun producers push to keep guns available and inexpensive; all the while hiding under the second amendment.
The Gun Manufacturers are profiteers of murder. They attempt to bear no responsibility for the deaths of people accidentally killed by poorly made or inaccurate firearms, let alone deaths that are caused by murderers. It has been made increasingly obvious that they market a mass of firearms to these criminals i.e.; silencers, assault weapons and armor piercing rounds. It is also evident that they profit from increase in the sales and consumers. Meaning they profit from the increase in the amount of guns on the street and people using them.
The National Rifle Association has amassed such wealth and power they can kill legislation, fund campaigns for pro-gun presidents, and slaughter cooperative gun associations. While still a governor, George W. Bush was pushed into signing a prohibition of specific types of law suits against gun manufacturers in the state of Texas. The NRA was also a key character in completely ending the American Shooting Sports Council. The ASSC representatives had stressed that they were willing to work with Congress on the mutual goal, to pass legislation in order to have a massive reduction in crime, a goal that the all too powerful NRA would not allow.
The lobbyists are “hired guns” of the gun market and the NRA. They are the main reason why there is a lack of laws passed to update or even remove the second amendment. Lobbyists convince people that you are safer with a gun in your home or at your side. They convince, instead of allowing you to realize that you can be shot by that very same type of weapon in your own home, or elsewhere. They convince legislators, judges and juries that it is our right to possess these weapons which cause violence and death. They leave out the fire-arm related deaths, accidental or intentional. Like any “temporarily insane” co-worker claiming violence in the heat of the moment. Or the stories of violence among children like the 6 year old Michigan child who shot his classmate with a .32 caliber firearm.
Gun control is a constant and highly contested political and cultural debate, despite in depth analysis from criminologists, social scientists, and public health specialists. These three profiteers of death hold our very lives admissible by keeping us from furthering restrictions or even prohibiting firearms all together to protect ourselves. So you see both sides are fighting for their very existence. Maybe we can afford to allow them to profit off society’s misery. Maybe we have to ask ourselves if we would prefer leaving it available for others to take our lives or the lives of our loved ones. Maybe by prohibiting their existence and using the money invested in such a huge death market, we would find more useful expenditures towards bettering our own way of life.

“See if you can grasp this now. You take away the tool, you take away the deaths those tools create. It’s kind of simple….”

Ok by this logic you must out law cars to stop deaths from accidents.
Or Alcohol because people drive drunk.
Or swimming because people drown.
Or smoking because second hand smoke kills.
Or fast food because Heart Disease kills.
Where do you stop???????

But your logic denies the facts.
This article is misleading and often out right wrong

Lets look at 1995 Fatal Accident Totals – (Source Cited: The National Center for Health Statistics.)

Motor Vehicles 43,900
Falls 12,600
Poisonings 10,600
Drownings 4,500
Fires 4,100
Choking 2,800
Firearm 1,400

Fire arms are only about 1.5% of all “Fatal Accidents”.

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred: (Source FBI Statistics)

Homicide rate:
-36% in Florida (Down)
-0.4% United States (Down)

Firearm homicide rate:
-37% in Florida (Down)
+15% United States (up)

Handgun homicide rate:
-41% in Florida (Down)
+24% United States (up)

…and as far as crimes committed by those who have a CCW/CPL….

.02% That’s right…two – one-hundreths OF A percent.

ok so some of u say that if guns were baned the mass murders wouldnt happen. I would like to point out that even if u could wave a magic wand and get all of the guns it sill wouldnt stop them. As you pointed out someone couldnt kill alot of people with a knife a bat wouldnt do it either a car mabey not real likely though but someone bent on killing a bunch of people could easly build a bomb it isnt that hard. Before one of you gun grabbers point it out I know that if you get rid of guns gun powder and black powder will be harder to get. But they are not the only things to make explosives from and actiualy they dont give you that big of a bang compared to other easly made bombs and actiualy black powder isnt that hard to make.