Question: Should Stricter Legislation Be Implemented to Control Firearms?

The debate over the implementation of more stringent gun control measures is a contentious one. The argument that gun laws reduce crime is often met with the counterpoint that criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms, even in areas with strict gun laws. This is exemplified by the situation in Chicago, where many illegal guns originate from states with lax gun regulations, like Indiana. If Indiana implemented stricter gun laws, the illicit trade would likely decrease, resulting in fewer gun crimes in Chicago.

However, the complexity of this issue lies in the fact that if one state tightens its gun laws, others might become sources for illegal firearms. This mirrors the challenges faced in controlling the drug trade, which is illegal across all states but still infiltrates from other countries. The analogy highlights the difficulty in completely stopping the flow of illegal guns.

The conversation also delves into the interpretation of the Second Amendment, particularly the "well regulated militia" clause. The argument is made that the comma in this clause serves to separate the concept of a well-regulated militia from the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This distinction is crucial in discussions about the scope of gun rights.

Advocates of more gun control laws assert that these measures do not infringe on the Second Amendment, as law-abiding citizens would still be able to purchase and own guns. The evidence they cite is that states with stricter gun laws have lower murder rates, indicating that gun control can be effective in reducing violent crime.

On the other hand, opponents argue that the founding fathers could not have anticipated the technological advancements in weaponry that have occurred since the Second Amendment was written. They suggest that as technology evolves, so should the laws governing its use. The example of drones is used to illustrate this point, suggesting that as new technologies emerge, laws need to be updated to address their implications.

The debate further explores historical precedents, such as President Madison's protection of a civilian ship's right to bear cannons, which were primarily military weapons at the time. This is used to argue that the concept of private citizens owning military-grade weapons is not entirely unprecedented.

However, critics counter that the context has changed, and private citizens no longer need military-grade weapons for defense, given the existence of a strong national military. They contend that the AR-15, often cited as a civilian-grade weapon, is more than sufficient for self-defense, hunting, and sports, and does not warrant the same level of restriction as fully automatic weapons.

The discussion also touches on the effectiveness of gun control in other countries. Countries

The handgun ban prevents law abiding citizens from self defense

As with the previous argument this is an example of taking an argument against a specific part to a complete extreme. Maybe the government should introduce tougher regulations covering sunbeds such as strict supervision or an area where access is restricted or sunbeds have to have built in manual safety/ override mechanisms etc. The problem described does not give a licence for the government to ban sunbeds and deny people (with age restrictions) the right to expose themselves to legitimate personal risk.

It is easy to catch people using laser pointers, or even just people possessing them, but the old law allowed possession of laser pointers, just as long as they were used proprerly. Before the law was in place, it was often very hard to catch laser offenders, and many of them got away with their crimes. Now it is much easier to catch laser users without permits.

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm," (Stevens v. United States).

It has been empirically proven that among countries of the world the ones with the lowest private ownership of handguns have a significantly lower homicide rate

The primary role of a government is to protect its citizens from damaging themselves and society as a whole. There is accordingly a great deal of precedent for a law restricting the use of violent video games. It is considered acceptable for governments to restrict the sale of dangerous things such as alcohol and tobacco to minors or even to enforce movie ratings or the use of seatbelts.

Arizona law represents a much needed step away from anarchy.

Unfettered right to bear arms would be too expansive

It is surely a good reason now why children and adults find it difficult to get hold of drugs and a reason why all of the other has not been suggested. There have been a significant amount of reported cases of children getting hold of parent's or guardian's drugs when drugs are prohibited now. This is not because the prohibition of drugs does not work, but that drugs themselves are bad and no matter what we do we cannot erase the fact that we have discovered them. If, however, we decided the logical result to the above would be to allow drugs on the market, even if they are carefully censored, the drug-addict would leave a lot more pills for example lying around for their child to be able to pick up and play with. Drug-taking now is done in private because prohibition is effective, but if drug-taking was public, children would be a lot more aware at a young age of their existence and this is temptation.

If the intentions of the framers had been to protect an individual right to bear arms, they would have clearly expressed this. Yet, the Second Amendment is not at all clear about an individual right to bear arms. The natural reading of the clause would indicate that the right relates only to the first, qualifying clause that states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". It is a stretch to read into the language an individual right. If this was the case, why wouldn't they simply have explicitly stated that an "individual right to bear arms should not be infringed".


Question: Should Stricter Gun Control Legislation Be Implemented?

"Assault Rifles" (AR-15's Legality)
The argument that gun control in one state will lead to smuggling from another state, or from outside the country, doesn't hold water. If guns are coming from other countries, it's a border control issue, not a gun law issue. While it's true that illegal guns will still be smuggled, the overall number will decrease. Most illegal guns in Chicago, for instance, come from other states where they are legally bought. Bringing guns from outside the country is much harder, involving crossing the border and traveling a long distance, creating a bottleneck in the supply of illegal guns. The Second Amendment's "well-regulated militia" clause was intended to establish the right for militias to exist, due to the minimal existence of a standing army at the time. The comma in the amendment separates this clause from the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" clause, and its presence is simply for stylistic reasons, as commas were used more frequently in that era. The AR-15, often cited as a civilian-grade weapon, is not suitable for hunting or self-defense. Hunting requires patience and precision, which a semiautomatic weapon does not provide. For self-defense, a shotgun or pistol is more appropriate. As technology advances, laws need to be updated. The Girardoni Air Rifle, mentioned by opponents of gun control, is not comparable to modern firearms. The Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller does not address the issue of banning certain guns, only the right to possess a handgun for self-defense. Comparisons to countries like Venezuela, Honduras, Brazil, Swaziland, Guatemala, Jamaica, El Salvador, and Colombia are not relevant, as they are third-world countries with high crime rates due to factors other than gun laws. In contrast, Japan and Canada have lower crime rates and stricter gun laws. States with more gun laws have lower gun homicide rates. The argument that more guns lead to more suicides and accidental deaths is valid, as is the need for gun safety measures and education. However, the claim that more concealed carry permits lead to less crime is flawed, as it can also lead to more armed criminals and innocent people getting caught in the crossfire. In conclusion, passing more gun control laws is necessary to reduce crime, accidental deaths, and suicides, and is constitutional. Sources: [insert sources here]

The handgun ban prevents law abiding citizens from self defense

Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, said in an interview: “nothing is 100 percent [but] The more difficult you make it for someone to conceal weapons, the fewer people who are going to be willing or capable of concealment.”[3]

Oral arguments in DC vs. Heller. March 19th, 2008 - "JUSTICE GINSBURG: If we're going back to the English Bill of Rights, it was always understood to be subject to the control and limitation and restriction of Parliament. And I don't think there's any doubt about that. And that's what we're talking about here, are legislative restrictions."

Anti-terrorism legislation is not how we should fight terrorism

Martin Albright. "Open carry is a bad idea." The Truth About Guns. August 24th, 2010: "Open Carry is an invitation to a PR disaster. Lets be honest: not all gun owners are rational people. There are crazies out there. With guns. Advocating Open Carry. If one or two of those people push the limits of civilized behavior all firearms owners will get tagged as 'crazy gun owners.' That’s infuriating to those of us who consider ourselves to be mature and responsible citizens. But that’s the world we live in. Enough such incidents and the hammer will drop on some serious (read: Draconian) gun laws that will make the now-expired 'assault weapons' ban look like a pleasant memory."

Since other gun classes have been banned, so too can handguns for reasonable ends.

Semi-automatic weapons do not serve a sporting purpose

Sending police out armed with firearms will only induce gangs to purchase more weapons of their own in response and increase the likelihood of gunfire exchange with whole communities caught in the middle. The only way people can be made to feel safer is for there to be fewer guns on the street, not more. People do not feel reassured seeing armed police, instead feeling less safe, so the counterpoint falls down. Because we are usef to the police not having guns armed police make us feel less safe. If your community has armed police then obviously something very bad is happening![[http://www.metro.co.uk/news/830381-armed-police-would-make-brits-feel-threatened-according-to-poll]]

DC is very small and very close to Maryland and Virginia, making it very easy for people to legally purchase guns outside of DC and bring them in. It also makes it very easy for blackmarket sales to occur.

Seriously look at World War 1 and 2. And look at countries that don't have video games like Somalia... Somalia have pirates, and no laws because everyone is killing each other in that shit country. BTW you should be worrying about countries where people that are able to buy guns in their store. Guns kill, video games don't! For some reason i can't make a nay point...


Question: Should Stricter Gun Control Legislation Be Implemented?

The United States should implement more stringent gun control regulations. I will begin by outlining my debate framework and then present my arguments for this discussion. Framework: The proposition argues that "We should adopt stricter gun control laws." This means that the affirmative side only needs to demonstrate one gun law that should be tightened to win the debate. Contention 1: Addresses the Root Cause of the Issue One of the primary causes of gun violence is the inadequacy of background checks. The current laws for background checks are ineffective, allowing criminals to obtain firearms easily. According to Everytown, Federal law only requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks. That means that millions of guns are exchanged each year without a check, primarily online or at gun shows through unlicensed "private sellers." Felons, domestic abusers, seriously mentally ill, and other dangerous people know about this loophole, and they exploit it every day. It's like having two lines at the airport - one with security, and one without. And criminals get to choose. We also need to ensure that the background check database is complete. States and federal agencies have failed to send hundreds of thousands of records to the national background check databases. Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen. The Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 32 people, was banned from buying guns. But he passed a background check because his records never made it into the system. By closing simple loopholes in the law, such as requiring private sellers to conduct background checks and entering information into databases faster, we can prevent criminals and the mentally ill from accessing guns, thereby averting tragedies before they occur. Contention 2: Reduces Homicides and Suicides We are all aware that there are intentional killings with guns. However, what many people do not know is that there are unintentional killings as well. According to The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted. 89% of unintentional shooting deaths of children occur in the home, and most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parents' absence. 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills themselves could be prevented by automatic child proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be

When the buying stops the killing can too

Once again the proposing team has not impressed us with their reasoning. Let's identify some of the obvious flaws in their case: (1) The proposition believes that the only valid reason for limiting individual freedom is the harm that is done to the 3rd party. Even though we do not accept this as the only criterion, we want to show that, even with their criterion, the plan does not make sense. There are inherent practical reasons why it can be very complicated/expensive/restrictive to prevent an individual under the influence of drugs to not restrict the liberties of his fellow citizens. People can be very hard to control when high. For instance, substances like amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP can occasionally cause violent outbursts for some individuals [[http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/library/basicfax6.htm]]. Even though people are responsible for any crime under the influence of drugs, we believe that we should also do whatever is necessary to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place. We do not see how it would be possible to put a policeman on every corner or trap drug users in places where they do not harm anyone. Since this is practically implausible, drugs should stay illegal. So what about alcohol, the proposition might say. Well, in some countries there are restrictions on selling alcohol during the night (Latvia, for instance). Here, the situation is identical. We recognize our inability to prevent crime from taking place if there would not be such a restriction. (2) We also do not believe in total individual freedom and want to advocate a more paternalistic approach. We will develop this in more detail in our arguments, but people often make decisions that they later regret. The state has better knowledge about the decisions that would be the most beneficial for the individual. So we CAN limit individual freedom if it helps our citizens to achieve outcomes that they value.

Arming the police will do more harm than good

This argument lacks statistical backing. There is a reason for this. Because the statistics systematically show that after corporal punishment was made illegal, crime increased, by 67%. The statistics are firmly in favour of the reintroduction of corporal punishment. In late 2009, American psychology professor Marjorie Gunnoe published a report that found that corporal punishment is good for kids- although since she was going against the grain of popular psychology most journals would not publish it. Nonetheless, her research was not meant to serve as a green light for parents to spank their children, but rather a red light for those groups who want corporal punishment banned. Here are some articles describing her findings: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/nurture-shock/2009/12/30/some-kids-are-never-spanked-do-they-turn-out-better.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6926823/Smacked-children-more-successful-later-in-life-study-finds.html

Open carry causes discomfort and worsens anti-gun opinions

This is not an argument it is a statement of fact (or otherwise). In fact it is more of an argument for proposition as it shows that smokers do not care about the effect they are having on others and indeed wish to exacerbate the problem by 'puff[ing] in [yo]ur face'. If this is the case then legislation is necessary to prevent them being a public nuisance.

Oral arguments in DC vs. Heller. March 19th, 2008 - "JUSTICE GINSBURG: If we're going back to the English Bill of Rights, it was always understood to be subject to the control and limitation and restriction of Parliament. And I don't think there's any doubt about that. And that's what we're talking about here, are legislative restrictions."

Law enforcement agents are put at a greater risk due to assault weapons

Knives are more deadly than assault weapons


Question: Should Stricter Firearms Regulations Be Implemented?

July Tournament
C1) Suicides and Gun Storage
A study by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that many gun owners store their firearms loaded and unlocked, and gun training is often associated with an increased likelihood of storing firearms in this manner. In a survey of 400 parents with firearms in the home, over 20% had a loaded firearm and 8% stored at least one firearm loaded and unlocked. Households with teenagers were somewhat more likely to store firearms unsafely. Another national random telephone survey of 2,770 adults found that of the 392 respondents who had at least one child and one firearm in the home, 22% had a loaded gun, 32% had an unlocked gun, and 8% had a gun stored loaded and unlocked. More than 1.6 million U.S. children live in homes with firearms that are stored loaded and unlocked, posing a threat to their safety.
B) Firearms and Suicide
In states with higher levels of household gun ownership, there are higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship holds for both genders and all age groups and remains true after accounting for poverty, urbanization, and unemployment. In 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves, and in more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal, with about 85% of suicide attempts with a firearm ending in death.
C2) Firearm Accidents
In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings, and American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries. About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds.
C3) Homicide
A study found that handgun purchase was more common among persons dying from suicide or homicide, particularly among those dying from gun homicide. Handgun purchasers accounted for less than 1% of the study population but 2.4% of gun homicides, 14.2% of gun suicides, and 16.7% of unintentional gun deaths. Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot, with 86 of them dying. Of the 12,765 murders in

In order to successfully outlaw nuclear weapons you must first discover an effective mechanism to scout the possession of warheads, create a regulatory body and find some way to hold large, irresponsible countries to international laws. Once it is possible to outlaw nuclear weapons, the prop's argument becomes invalid.

"Arms" falling under the 2nd Amendment can be regulated but not banned

The right to bear arms has become an important, lasting expression to many American individuals of their individual freedom and liberty. There are few symbols as powerful, particularly as the right to bear arms for the purposes of, potentially, joining a militia and fighting a tyrannical government is such a tangible concept. The rights to free speech and religion are much less tangible, and lack the power and threat of violence as a check on government tyranny. Such a symbolic expression of freedom resonates too deeply with many Americans to be deprived.

A shotgun, pistol, or rifle are all adequate means of self-defense. These are powerful weapons with heavy destructive force. They can easily kill multiple assailants in rapid succession when used properly. If there is any concern about the ability of a gun owner to wield a shotgun or pistol properly such that they can kill multiple assailants, than they should seek enhanced training instead of an assault weapon.

The sale of assault weapons continued beyond the 1994 ban, but with very slight modifications, such as the sawing off of muzzles, to exploit the loopholes of the ban. Therefore, there was never exactly a ban on assault weapons, but simply a shift in how the manufacturers produced them. And, despite the fact that assault weapons were still being produced and sold, there were still drops in crime and the use of assault weapons on the streets. This suggests that assault weapons were not actually the issue.

Images about what continent prevail in gun ownership are erroneous and an general international picture is hard to use evidence

It has been empirically proven that among countries of the world the ones with the lowest private ownership of handguns have a significantly lower homicide rate

Open carry helps educate public about guns

When the buying stops the killing can too

This is a set of government guidelines that regulates such things as the accuracy of sharpshooters that kill Kangaroos, ensuring that direct shots to the head occur and result in the instantaneous, painless death of Kangaroos.


Question: Should Stricter Gun Regulation Measures Be Implemented?

Gun Control Measures
It seems I've stumbled upon a topic I don't entirely agree with, but I'll present the opposing viewpoint to ensure a balanced discussion. The idea is that gun control doesn't effectively deter crime; gun ownership, on the other hand, serves as a deterrent. A 2013 study revealed that assault weapons bans had little impact on state-level murder rates, and states with restrictions on concealed weapons carrying had higher gun-related homicides. Despite a doubling of gun ownership in the 20th century, the murder rate decreased. According to Dr. John R. Lott Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws," states with significant increases in gun ownership experienced substantial drops in violent crime rates. Concealed carry laws led to an 84% reduction in multiple-victim shootings, with deaths and injuries decreasing by 90% and 82%, respectively. A 2014 Pew survey indicated that 57% of people believe gun ownership protects them from victimization. Journalist John Stossel argued that criminals don't abide by laws and, without the fear of armed victims, have an easier time committing crimes. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Gun control laws infringe on the right to self-defense and undermine people's sense of safety. The National Rifle Association (NRA) claims guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. Police can't protect everyone at all times. A Pew Research survey found that 61% of men and 56% of women believe stricter gun laws would make it harder for people to protect their homes and families. Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University School of Law stated that the right to self-defense and access to self-defense tools is a fundamental natural right derived from the right to life, and many gun control laws hinder law-abiding citizens' ability to defend themselves against violent criminals. Constitutions in 37 U.S. states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, often with explicit language. Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, emphasized that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A 2013 survey of convicted felons found that 48% avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. A Pew Foundation report revealed that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female

In today's reality the Second Amendment cannot be applied to civilians

The handgun is used more commonly than any other weapons in self defense in the home. Roughly 80 percent of all self-defense occurs with handguns, according to some sources.[9] This is because it is small, can be easily stowed in a house where it may be of need, and because it is easy to wield and fire. To ban a weapon that is so important in self-defense would reduce the capacity of citizens to defend themselves, making citizens more vulnerable, and possibly inviting further robberies.

Not only is it wrong for the government to take censorship-like steps against violent video games but it is also impossible to do so effectively. Violent video games will still be available on the internet and, in fact, by restricting the sale of violent video games the government will push would-be users to illegal downloading programs and therefore to an increasingly prevalent black market.

There are adequate alternatives to assault weapons for self-defense.

Assault weapons are military caliber weapons not suited for home protection purposes

The DC handgun ban case does not have an isolated impact in DC. Rather, it has wide-ranging implications for gun laws across the country. A handgun ban in DC violates the principle of an individual right to bear arms. As such, for those in favor of gun rights, which is a large portion of the country, opposition to the DC handgun is imperative.

Concealed carry broadens deterrence by keeping criminals in dark.

A shotgun, pistol, or rifle are all adequate means of self-defense. These are powerful weapons with heavy destructive force. They can easily kill multiple assailants in rapid succession when used properly. If there is any concern about the ability of a gun owner to wield a shotgun or pistol properly such that they can kill multiple assailants, than they should seek enhanced training instead of an assault weapon.

. Assault weapons can hold and fire more rounds. This is directly proportional to how many people can be killed.

The US should not offer individual gun rights when other countries do not


Question: Should Stricter Gun Regulation Measures Be Implemented?

Should firearms be readily accessible to the public? Initially, a responsible and law-respecting individual would understand the legal framework and measures in place to address issues. Taking the law into one's own hands with a lethal weapon while law enforcement is available is certainly not the action of a law-abiding citizen. Furthermore, increasing the number of firearms in circulation will not alleviate any problems; instead, it will likely lead to more chaos and disorder. There's no assurance that these so-called 'law-abiding citizens' will remain rational when they live in a society where everyone carries a concealed weapon and criminals wield more powerful firearms that outmatch those of the citizens. Even with regulations in place to ensure that only mentally stable individuals possess guns, this negates the primary goal: that every individual, without exception, should be armed to defend themselves. It is evident that permitting all citizens to carry firearms is misguided, and imposing stricter regulations will merely result in some individuals being unarmed and unable to protect themselves.

We believe that the final think we need to do in this debate is to show that, even in a perfectly regulated market, harmful substances can be very dangerous. In the recent time the amount of deaths from overdose of drugs has been gradually increasing. The pace is amazing. Over the last few years the number of people died from overdose has become 4 to 5 times higher than during the “black tar” heroin epidemics of the 1970s and more than twice what it was during the peak of cocaine-crack outbreak in the early 1990s. Also the profile of people dying from overdose has changed from poor Afro-American youngsters to working white male in their 40s. It is amazing that cocaine, heroin and amphetamines account only for about 39% of these deaths. What is happening then? The research has been conducted to explain this paradigm and it gave striking results. The huge increase in overdose deaths accounts mostly for prescription drugs. Prescription “painkillers” called opioids like Vicodin OxyCondin or Methadone gained the honorable first place according to statistics. Sedatives like Valium now highly used by many people got the third place in this “people killing” competition. The number of deaths that involved prescription opioid analgesics increased from 2,900 in 1999 to 7,500 in 2004, which in other words in an increase of 160% in just 5 years. However, during the same time rates of overdose deaths from heroin or cocaine remained flat. The reason for these deaths in the first place is the increasing usage of these legal drugs. The country wide research in the US showed the positive correlation between unintentional death from overdose rates and usage of painkillers and sedatives. On the second place is abuse and misuse of these legal drugs. [[http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2008/03/t20080312b.html]] We live in society where people are constantly overwhelmed with stress and problems. Some people do sports to cope with it, some people like fishing and resting in nature, but some people use sedatives to cope with high pressure or painkillers to cancel their headache. These prescription drugs are legal since they are regarded to be more or less harmful. The evidence we gave show how even these relatively harmless drugs could cause deaths of thousands of people. Illegal drugs are now banned. One of the reasons is that they are more harmful than prescription drugs. The other one is that addiction and tolerance towards them develops very fast. Imagine now the situation after amphetamine, cocaine and heroin are legalized. They all are even better painkillers than prescription drugs and they also all are more addictive. Now people if they want to get a sedative or a painkiller have to see a doctor, explain him their problems, and only then, if the doctor considers it to be worth, they could get a recipe. If the doctor refuses in prescribing a drug, they have to think out a sophisticated way of abusing the system, which could be hard to imagine and implement. Imagine now better and more violent painkillers are legalized. People don’t have to see a doctor anymore to get their recipe. They just go to a supermarket and buy a dose of heroin. It is amazing how it helps to get rid of their headache they think. The next time they have brutal headache they visit the store once again. And after one more they are hooked and have to use heroin just because otherwise their body can’t function. Moreover, tolerance is developed soon. Now they have to buy not a one dose of heroin to feel the effect, but two, three or five times more. In the end police finds them drown in their vomit and report one more heroin overdose death. Statistics proves that people are very eager on dying from prescription drug overdose even now, although acquiring drugs involves significant costs of going to doctor or abusing a system. If we legalize better painkillers and sedatives, but more violent ones, which are more likely to cause death, we believe that rates of such death cases will skyrocket. Predicting that the proposition could call legal status of prescription drugs and illegal of heroin or cocaine to be unfair, we would like to say that we feel the debate to be more about what is good and what is not, rather than what is fair in relation to evil substances. We would like very much to cancel all death of such kind, but these drugs are necessary for some people. That’s why we strive for stricter regulations and control. If we could alter these deaths at least partially by banning drugs, we go for it. By the way statistics we have given ruins the argument of forbidden fruit once again. The huge number of deaths from drugs accounts mostly for legal prescription drugs. The increase in these rates accounts for prescription drugs as well with rates of deaths caused by heroin and cocaine remaining flat. The amount of deaths caused by legal drugs is also higher than the amount of deaths during the epidemics of heroin in the 1970s or the outbreak of cocaine-crack in the 1990s. This proves that people chose what is easier to acquire rather than what is forbidden when making a decision. They prefer to go to a doctor and buying a prescription drug, rather than visiting a drug dealer to try out a “forbidden fruit”. This is because going to a doctor is legal and doesn’t involve any consequences if they are caught by police. Also going to a doctor is easier because they could find the address of a hospital in the record book and don’t have to search for it. However, finding a drug dealer involves searching for it and meeting him or visiting certain unpleasant places in unpleasant districts. Thus most of people prefer convenience rather than feelings from trying something forbidden. If you make serious drugs available and easy to buy, people won’t stop consuming them because they are not forbidden any more. A more likely scenario is that they switch to them from prescription drugs and consume more of them, since costs involved in acquiring them (including time and the fact they are breaking the law) fall significantly. In the very end we would like to note one more mechanism of how legalization leads to an increased consumption. By putting a status “illegal” on something we show that it is potentially harmful and using it could cause serious consequences. Imagine if the state now legalizes drugs, it sends a clear message to public that drugs “are not that bad”. In fact, it puts it even lower than prescription drugs in the list of potential harmfulness, since no regulations were proposed. This shows people that heroin is less harmful than Valium and they start substituting Valium for heroin, since it also helps to calm down.

If the intentions of the framers had been to protect an individual right to bear arms, they would have clearly expressed this. Yet, the Second Amendment is not at all clear about an individual right to bear arms. The natural reading of the clause would indicate that the right relates only to the first, qualifying clause that states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." It is a stretch to read into the language an individual right. If this were the case, why wouldn't they simply have explicitly stated that an "individual right to bear arms should not be infringed".

An assault weapons ban violates the presumption of innocence

The police in the UK should be armed. The events of the rioting in the summer of 2011 proved that they were powerless to protect the public.Recommendations ahve already been made by senior police officers that this is what should happen. I live in Calgary now and the police here are armed. It is a far far safer city. Criminals know if they attack an officer they will be shot ndin some case they have been shot and killed. The police here are real police. When I lived in the UK people kept saying the British Police are the envy of the world, since I emigrated, I can tell you they are not. They are laughed at and people I speak to here cannot believe the UK police are not armed. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear - only the criminals. The criminals have guns and so should the police. To say this will increase gun crime is wrong. Gun crime has been on the increase for years in the UK. A police officer in the town where I lived turned up to a bank robbery and the thieves turned round and shot the officer. The police need to be able to repsond. Its time the UK woke up, kicked out political correctness and civil liberties and brought in common sense and justice. I feel very safe in my adopted city knowing the police have the upper hand.

Martin Albright. "Open carry is a bad idea." The Truth About Guns. August 24th, 2010: "Open Carry is an invitation to a PR disaster. Lets be honest: not all gun owners are rational people. There are crazies out there. With guns. Advocating Open Carry. If one or two of those people push the limits of civilized behavior all firearms owners will get tagged as 'crazy gun owners.' That’s infuriating to those of us who consider ourselves to be mature and responsible citizens. But that’s the world we live in. Enough such incidents and the hammer will drop on some serious (read: Draconian) gun laws that will make the now-expired 'assault weapons' ban look like a pleasant memory."

The magnitude of the problem should be the basis for this debate. In the USA, every school day, at ...

Even if disarming is deemed necessary, it will be unconstitutional

. Assault weapons are responsible for 1 in 5 deaths of law enforcement agents.

The 2nd Amendment does not explicitly refer to a right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. It only explicitly refers to a right to bear arms for the purpose of upholding "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The 2nd Amendment should not be read as conferring a right that it does not clearly confer; a right to arms for the purpose of self defense. Inferences are insufficient, particularly as evidence can be gathered regarding the intentions of the framers of the Constitution that could cut both for and against the notion that the 2nd amendment was intended to confer an individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Because neither inference can be definitely deemed correct, the Constitution must be taken at its explicit word, which gives no mention to self-defense.

The methodology of the studies has proven to be flawed. This goes to show that when arguments are supported by studies that support that the murder rate has decreased their validity and reliability is undermined by a flawed methodology.


Question: Should Stricter Gun Control Legislation Be Implemented?

The notion that imposing stricter gun laws on responsible gun owners, who use firearms for self-defense and crime prevention, will somehow take guns off the streets is highly questionable. This is because criminals often acquire guns through illicit means, bypassing legal channels that require permits and background checks. The analogy often used to highlight the ineffectiveness of this approach is that if gun control worked, the illegal drug trade would not exist. By targeting law-abiding citizens with gun restrictions, it only becomes more challenging for them to purchase firearms, while doing little to prevent criminals from obtaining them.

The concept of gun control encompasses various legislative measures designed to make it more difficult for individuals to acquire firearms, such as mandatory licensing, background checks, and waiting periods. Critics argue that these measures are counterproductive, as they only inconvenience lawful gun owners and do not deter criminals. For instance, Alex Jones has suggested that strict gun control laws can lead to a decrease in the fear of gun violence, potentially emboldening criminals. This is because individuals who go through the legal process to obtain a gun are typically concerned with their own safety and are unlikely to commit crimes, as doing so would immediately identify them.

True criminals, intent on using firearms for illegal activities, do not follow legal procedures. They obtain guns through illegal channels, such as purchasing them on the street. Therefore, gun control measures have little impact on preventing criminals from acquiring or using firearms. Background checks, for example, are ineffective in stopping determined criminals from obtaining guns, as evidenced by cases like Benjamin Smith, who was unable to pass a background check but still managed to buy two handguns illegally and commit a mass shooting.

Proposals for gun-free zones and outright gun bans are also criticized for being ineffective. Gun-free zones create a false sense of security and only prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms, which could potentially deter crime. Similarly, banning guns is seen as futile, given the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the historical precedent that gun ownership can protect citizens from tyrannical governments.

The Second Amendment was written into the Constitution to ensure that citizens have the means to protect themselves from a potentially oppressive government. The idea is that an armed populace can resist government overreach. Historically, leaders like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao confiscated guns from their citizens, leading to tragic consequences. Gun ownership is seen as a safeguard against such abuses of power.

Proponents of gun rights argue that gun control measures are a threat to liberty and that the right to bear arms is a constitutional guarantee that should not be infringed upon.

An individual's rights end when they impinge on the safety and rights of others. By enacting laws ag...

DC is very small and very close to Maryland and Virginia, making it very easy for people to legally purchase guns outside of DC and bring them in. It also makes it very easy for blackmarket sales to occur.

The opposition’s reasoning in this argument is superficiality at its best. They look at one effect of a policy (a bit better prevention) and from that they conclude that the policy as a whole is good. Obviously, we also do not regret the acts prevented. In fact, we would be raging in anger if the policy, after curtailing so many rights of ours, would still fail to deliver any results in what it is supposed to do in the first place. Coming back to their example, it is doubtful whether criminal justice system would have failed to prevent this act (or any other act of terrorism). It is very easy to point out at one preventive success, while in fact, you have no idea how things would have turned out in other circumstances. In our substantive case we have proven that criminal justice system has preventive capacity, but we are glad to repeat that once more. Under anti-terrorism legislation, you can freely intercept whoever you wish. Under criminal law, you have to get an approval of a judge (or somebody else who has the authority to do so, which depends on the legislation of a country), so the prevention of this act without anti-terror legislation is perfectly plausible. The opposition tells us that they do not regret the acts prevented by anti-terrorism legislation. For some strange reasons they forget several other things that they do not regret. They do not regret that they curtail the rights of their citizens. They do not regret that they promote abuse of the enforcement agencies. They do not regret that under their legislation innocent citizens are afraid to freely act and speak in the fear that they will be abused by their own government. They do not regret discriminating people and separating societies. They do not regret convicting innocent people. They do not regret undermining the whole system of criminal justice when for any crime you can be tried in military courts and denied legal defense. If we extrapolate the case of the opposition a bit further, it becomes quite obvious that the next logical step from their viewpoint would be to release an anti-crime legislation which would allow unlimited detention, unfair trials, limit access to witnesses for each and every crime. After all, they would not regret that they prevented that robbery, would they? If we come to the scenario of 1984, their legislations would arguably prevent all crimes. What about regretting that, also no? The cornerstone of the opposition’s case in the debate should have been a proof that terrorism is a threat of such immensity that just after hearing the word ‘terrorism’ we should dreadfully quiver in fear and beg for mercy. Just because the proposition in the beginning of the case conceded that it is a threat (hey, old crooked trees falling on us is also a threat), they took for granted that they do not have to prove anything here. Besides this, they could have proven that the legislation has enough of potential to curb the potential misuse of it. Instead, the opposition merely believed that fighting terrorism and preserving the national security at any means is the ultimate goal of theirs. They forgot that the state by itself is nothing but only borders and laws, and it consists of people, and it is the people who actually matter – their ability to move, speak and think freely. The whole case of the opposition can be fairly well summarized in one sentence: “Terrorism is bad, let's fight it”. We outlined the superficiality of it above. Since there is not much more to their case, it simply does not stand.

The 1994 assault weapons ban was ineffectual

It's a great idea but in practice how would it work? Taking them out of the shops will leave greater problems since many people smoke because they are addicted and not because they enjoy it. Making something illegal is of course easier than it seems. We must weigh in not only the reasons why, but also how are we going to implement a certain set of provision. We have to realise that making something illegal does not automatically solve a problem, instead it might create even more problems as a repercussion to such a decision. Making illicit drugs such as heroine, cocaine, etc. was agreeably a good decision. However, the consequences of making such commendable decisions also involve the allocation of large amounts of state resources (read: tax payer money) to combat illegal drug trafficking. Apparently, making these drugs illegal did not really stop people from using the drugs (fyi: drugs are still a lucrative business, if not why would people risk their lives to smuggle it). That said, the same goes for cigarettes, I don't see any strong reason that making cigarettes (or smoking them) illegal to be of any use in the context of making people quit the bad habit. People who smoke are addicted to it, and as those people who are addicted to illicit drugs, they will always find ways to circumvent the law. Making smoking illegal does not automatically make the business less profitable. As I see it, the demand for cigarettes are still high everywhere, and this kind of policy would only create "black markets" for the item. This in turn would put burden on the law enforcement to combat such black markets (read: more personnel, more funds needed), and of course these burdens would be passed on to tax payers who pays for all the cost of faithfully enforcing such a new law. I believe that the restrictions and requirements which are already in place (i.e. restricting smoking areas, limited advertisement methods) are sufficient enough to tackle the problem. Moreover, the current approach is right on track where the government should sponsor and support policies that would decrease the demand for cigarettes (if the demand for cigarettes were to fall substantially, the business would be less lucrative, and soon enough nobody will be in the cigarette business). This is not a policy that would effectively reduce the demand, simply making it illegal is not addressing to the demand problem.Thus, what I see in this is another burden for the state budget, with little or minimal impact on the real issue at hand.

Hunting need not be tolerated; it is cruel and can be made unlawful

The laws enacted by the government are there to protect people and prevent them from making mistakes. They are needed for a society that is not overrun with crime.

This is a sad excuse for an argument because we all know this would not take place even 20% of the time

Tighter security controls at airports and borders will help prevent attacks and loss of life. Such measures could include more intrusive scanning, body searches, watch lists, etc. In addition to their deterrence effect, they will enable officials to stop attacks as they are happening.

Nikil Arora. "If US states allow open-carry of guns, why not Britain?" Christian Science Monitor. March 16th, 2010: "The BBC news on Thursday night featured a report on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Chicago gun ban; litigation launched after the successful case of DC v Heller, which overturned a similar outright prohibition on handguns in Washington DC. [...] the BBC’s report was worth watching. It largely focussed on the effect of laws already in force in Wisconsin, which allow the open-carry, but not concealed-carry, of handguns. It showed how responsible, law-abiding citizens carrying guns openly leads to people both feeling and being safer."


Question: Should Stricter Legislation Be Implemented to Control Firearms?

Gun Control
In the final round, I will address my opponent's responses to my initial arguments in Round 3. More guns, less crime: England and Wales experienced an increase in their homicide rates following the implementation of gun restrictions, demonstrating that gun control is not effective in eliminating crime. The graph may not appear dramatic because the homicide rates per million people in England and Wales were combined on the same graph. However, the trend in the murder rate over time and its changes when gun control laws are enacted are significant. I have demonstrated that the murder rate increased, and that gun control is not effective, particularly in this case. My opponent has ignored the facts I presented about how crime rates in European countries with varying gun laws were higher with more laws and lower with fewer laws.
My opponent then scrutinizes my source and focuses on the Chicago graph, which measured the murder rate in response to strict gun bans. The graph did fluctuate, but it was cut off at 2007. I will provide some missing information: An Illinois concealed carry law was enacted in July 2013. The Chicago homicide rate for the first quarter of 2014 was the lowest since 1958[1]. This significant change coincidentally occurred right after the ban on carrying guns was lifted.
It is true that the UK's murder rate is slightly lower than America's, but it has been rising significantly since gun laws were enacted. The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, with 90 guns per 100 people. If more guns mean more crime, then the US should have the highest crime rate in the world. However, the US's homicide rate per capita is #111, despite having so many guns[2]. Most of the countries above the US are progressive countries with gun control laws, so the claim that "more guns, more crime" is false. Crime rates can be influenced by various factors, but gun control has the largest impact since it directly targets the number of guns used for crime.
The "homicides with large anomalies unrelated to guns" in the UK graph indicates that homicides were committed using knives and other non-firearm weapons. This shows that even if criminals do not have guns, they will still find ways to commit crime without them. The significant spike was the result of the criminal response to the UK gun ban in 1997.
It is important to note that my opponent has not provided any counter-evidence to suggest that gun control reduces crime

When the buying stops the killing can too

The laws enacted by the government are there to protect people and prevent them from making mistakes. They are needed for a society that is not overrun with crime.

The opposition is introducing other content that does already fall under ratings or censorship therefore irrelevant to their case. egAnimal Farm, Clockwork Orange. even Pornography. Opposition must stay on the topic. Fictional violence does lead to real violence!!! It is a sad state of affairs when we decide that fictional gratuitous violence is entertainment. It appears the Opposition would rather subject our youth to the glorification of VAW then try blame perpetrators because jail was a deterrent and they should have been 'reasonable' Poverty rates go hand in hand with poor literacy but globalisation impacts all regardless of values and situation. So censorship; in this case. the banning of music that glorifies VAW is essential. We affirm the line that this music that 'GLORIFIES'. VAW must be banned because it is morally imperative regardless of the number of people who act on the inherent messages within the music because it breaks down the moral fabric of society, hence potentially encouraging singers like Pink who create reactionary songs that glorify acts of violence against men in her song- 'So what?'; and it places women in a position where they are still fighting against the sexual objectification of women that condones them being subjugated and then condones them having a poor sense of self worth believing that they have to be subject to males, often idealised as 'pimps' in this music. It doesn't matter if the audience is so called 'reasonable' the govt bodies have the responsibilty to help maintain the dignity and respect of all genders. There are racial & homosexual vilification laws, but no gender vilification laws that protect women from being subjected to these messages.They have no power then to stop these attitudes permeating society because we give 'tacit consent'. This is why we need to have govt bodiest that act on our 'express consent'.[[Loche,Second Treatise of Government, 1690.Hackett Publishing Comp]]

You will see that the other side of this argument makes a distinction between things that an individual can control and those he/she cannot. The argument is that fire and police protection are things beyond the control of individuals, but that healthcare is not. This argument is seriously flawed. Many healthcare issues are very much out of the control of individuals. Consider a bus accident. Many accidents are out of the control of individuals. While many accidents are a result of an individual being stupid or not being careful, so are many fires. There is no real distinction here. Either you should be opposed to fire/police protection and universal healthcare, or should support both. Picking one is a logical inconsistency.

Laws are usually created for the general public. Besides, should we risk deaths just because a few people shake their heads

The right to bear arms is fully protected with concealed carry laws. The US Constitution does not specify what guns and what types of carrying methods should be lawful. It specifies only that "bearing" is a right. A restriction that disallows open carrying and allows concealed carrying is, therefore, fully consistent with the US Constitution's right to bear arms.

The handgun is used more commonly than any other weapons in self defense in the home. Roughly 80 percent of all self-defense occurs with handguns, according to some sources.[9] This is because it is small, can be easily stowed in a house where it may be of need, and because it is easy to wield and fire. To ban a weapon that is so important in self-defense would reduce the capacity of citizens to defend themselves, making citizens more vulnerable, and possibly inviting further robberies.

In today's reality the Second Amendment cannot be applied to civilians

Tighter immigration laws and tougher entry measures can be used.

From a security standpoint, nothing should be permitted in schools. Shoes can be used to beat people, what with martial arts trends taught to children even human hands can be used as effective death machines. A sharpened poked into the jugular vein causes fatal injury. When Britain banned guns, (kitchen)knife crime escalated, banning knives can mean the escalation of `pencil`crime and so on; it`s not a cycle that can really be stopped. Take pencils away and there will be a significant rise in people injuring/killing each other with their bare hands(and they do). [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4770744.stm]] And the concerns are baseless since this particular kind of knife has not been used in any reported crime. Canada ruled for this and maybe Britain should too.


Question: Should Stricter Gun Control Legislation Be Implemented?

Gun Control Laws
Washington D.C. has demonstrated that handgun bans are effective in reducing homicides and suicides. In 1976, a law was enacted prohibiting the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1991 examined the impact of this law on the frequency of homicides and suicides between 1968 and 1987. The study concluded that there was an immediate decline in firearms-related deaths in D.C., which was not observed in adjacent Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions without such a law. The data suggested that the law prevented an average of 47 deaths per year after its implementation. Handgun bans are enforceable, as evidenced by their effectiveness in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, where gun-related death rates are significantly lower than in the U.S.

Evidence supports the notion that gun control measures can be effective. A study published in the February issue of Social Science and Medicine found that states with higher rates of gun ownership also have higher rates of homicide. The research, conducted by Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health and his team, compared gun ownership data with the number of people killed over a three-year period. In states with the highest gun ownership rates, the overall homicide rate was 60% higher than in states with the lowest gun ownership rates. The rate of homicides involving guns was more than twice as high. Although homicide rates may not rise, private handgun ownership increases suicide rates and accidental shootings, which are not reflected in homicide statistics.

Most firearm deaths in America are not the result of homicide but suicide. Individuals who own a gun are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners. A study by Mark Duggan, an associate professor of economics at the University of Maryland, found that the relationship between state-level gun ownership and suicide rates seems driven by a positive correlation between suicidal tendencies and gun ownership. The male-female suicide ratio is significantly greater in places with more gun ownership, suggesting that instrumentality effects may also partially explain this relationship.

Firearm-related domestic violence has disproportionately negative effects on children. Children who witness incidents of domestic violence involving the use or threat of a firearm exhibit higher levels of behavior problems than children who do not. Firearm ownership negatively and disproportionately affects women, as a study found that when there are one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increases nearly five times, and the risk of homicide increases more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated

"Open Carry" Simple musings from a guy with guns. June 24th, 2008: "I suspect that people are much more likely to be impolite when they do not know for a fact that you are armed. I do not think of this as intentional intimidation on my part, but as the old saying goes; 'An armed society is a polite society.'"

Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, said in an interview: “nothing is 100 percent [but] The more difficult you make it for someone to conceal weapons, the fewer people who are going to be willing or capable of concealment.”[3]

Ban on lazers is an overreaction; regulation more fair

Some argue that one of the main purposes of the 2nd amendment is to enable citizens to train with weapons so that they are prepared for military service or the draft. If this is the case, and if the military is fully capable of supplying citizens with guns upon entering the service or being drafted, then it is appropriate to restrict citizen gun-use to training purposes at gun ranges. In this case, there is no need for citizens to own guns, but only the need for citizens to train with them such that they are fully prepared to serve militarily.

Governments should not legislate on how people should act. This is social engineering and historically has not had much in the way of success. Furthermore, it poses serious civil liberties questions. Do women not have a right to use their own bodies as they see fit? Karl Popper, in "The Open Society and its Enemies" put forward the idea that all large scale idealistic social engineering only led to repression (are the police going to strap women who dont want to breastfeed down and hold the baby in place?). He said the only acceptable method known is for peicemeal negative legislation, e.g., legislate to stop people hurting their children if it is neccesary, but dont legislate to make them behave in the way you would like. People arent slaves to the government. The last point to this is: where does this kind of legislation stop? If you decided that people should be thin, athletic, with good teeth and well spoken, are you going to make it illegal to not excercise, eat sugary snacks and talk with a non-standard accent? (aka, being born in the North)

The 1994 US assault weapons ban significantly decreased use.

It is expressly illegal to own a gun in the UK unless it is a hunting rifle, and even then you need a license. What kind of example are the police setting if they can use guns, but we can't? Policemen are still citizens! They have the same rights as anyone else, they aren't in some way 'immune' to charges! Besides, what happens if some hopeless police officer lets his gun out of his sight for a minute and it gets in the wrong hands? This will not prevent crime, if anything it will provoke an increase in gun crime. Gun crime is low in the UK, and we should keep it that way.

Assuming that cigarettes do kill 1,200 people a day, that would mean 438,000 a year. In 2001, car accidents caused 669,000 deaths. [[http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/cause.php]] Should we outlaw driving to? In my opinion, smokers know the risk. They choose to smoke anyway. They are adults that can do what they chose to.

Most automatic weapons were already illegal under the National Firearms Act of 1934

Firstly, the statistics show that knife and gun crime are over represented in the news. There is a moral panic in which people think if they are attacked it will be by a knife wielding maniac. This is simply not true. There is more chance that you will be in a car accident than be attacked on the street. Secondly, if you arm the police, it will only serve in arming the criminals to a higher level as well. Look at Japan, the police are trained in hand to hand combat and carry no weapons. The criminals carry no firearms, partly because of the tight gun control laws and enforcement. Thirdly, arming the police will normalise guns and make them seem less threatening. This will encourage people to have them as they become 'desensitised' to guns. Fourthly, the police already have an armed response unit set aside for the rare occasions when firearms officers are needed. Having every police officer trained to use a firearm will increase training time and cost.


Question: Should Stricter Firearm Regulations Be Implemented?

The debate over gun control often centers around the argument that more laws are necessary to curb violence, but the issue is far more complex. Contrary to popular belief, countries like the UK, which enacted strict gun control measures, have experienced higher crime rates, becoming one of the most violent countries in the developed world. The idea that more guns lead to less crime is not a call for everyone to own a firearm, but rather a recognition that the freedom to bear arms acts as a deterrent to criminals and the mentally unstable. As the US violent crime rate has declined, coinciding with an increase in gun ownership, it raises questions about the effectiveness of gun control policies.

The Second Amendment, enshrined in the Constitution, protects the right to own firearms as a fundamental liberty. The Founding Fathers, wise men who studied history and sought to protect the people's rights, viewed gun ownership as essential to self-defense and the preservation of a free society. They believed that a well-regulated militia, composed of the people, was necessary for security. Historical figures like George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, and James Madison emphasized the importance of arms in ensuring peace, security, and happiness.

Guns save lives by providing individuals the means to defend themselves and their families. The media often focuses on gun-related tragedies, but rarely reports on the countless instances where guns are used for self-defense. For example, in the Pearl High School shooting, an assistant principal stopped the shooter using a handgun. Criminologists estimate that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year, and over 200,000 women use guns for protection from attackers.

Banning guns does not prevent criminals from obtaining them. In countries with strict gun control, like Mexico, crime rates remain high as criminals monopolize firearms. Switzerland, with high gun ownership and low crime rates, is a model for the effectiveness of gun freedom. Inanimate objects like guns, knives, and bats do not kill people; criminals do. Psychiatric drugs, often prescribed to recent shooters, may contribute more to violence than guns.

The government cannot always protect its citizens against criminals, as 911 response times can be too slow in critical situations. The Second Amendment was not included for hunting but to protect individuals from a tyrannical government. History has shown that disarmed populations are vulnerable to government oppression, as evidenced by the millions killed under regimes that confiscated weapons.

In conclusion, the argument against gun control is grounded in historical evidence, constitutional rights, and the practical need for

Since other gun classes have been banned, so too can handguns for reasonable ends.

A handgun ban deprives citizens of the most commonly used weapon for self defense

Open carry causes discomfort and worsens anti-gun opinions

It is true that American history is filled with violence and bias towards ethnic minorities. However, the path to resolving this issue is to ensure every individual, regardless of class, race, or gender, has the right to bear arms, not to restrict that right to a militia.

The handgun is used more commonly than any other weapons in self defense in the home. Roughly 80 percent of all self-defense occurs with handguns, according to some sources.[9] This is because it is small, can be easily stowed in a house where it may be of need, and because it is easy to wield and fire. To ban a weapon that is so important in self-defense would reduce the capacity of citizens to defend themselves, making citizens more vulnerable, and possibly inviting further robberies.

Citizen gun ownership acts as a deterrent against criminals

There are adequate alternatives to assault weapons for self-defense.

The second clause of the 2nd Amendment is broader than the first

No individual rights are absolute. The right to free speech is not absolute. Libel, slander, and hate crime laws are examples of reasonable restrictions on this right. Similar restrictions can be placed on the right to bear arms. So, even if there is an individual right to bear arms, it is possible to consider the limited ban on handguns in DC as a reasonable restriction of this right.

"Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry." YouCanCarry.com: "Concealed Carry: This is usually the preferred method mainly becuase people don’t like other people to know that they have a firearm on their person. It draws a lot of attention (both good and bad). A lot of people don’t want to deal with that kind of attention as it may lead you to getting banned from stores, homes, or shunned by people. I personally have a family member that doesn’t like to be in the same house as me when I have a firearm. And since I always have my firearm that makes for some awkward situations."


Question: Should Stricter Gun Control Regulations Be Implemented?

The Role of Gun Control Laws in the United States

I appreciate your reply and would like to emphasize that gun control is just one of several factors in reducing gun-related crimes. I'm not suggesting that implementing more gun laws would eliminate gun crime entirely, but it is a crucial step. Although states like New York, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Connecticut have experienced mass shootings, states with less stringent gun laws, such as Texas, have also had similar incidents. These events are rare and not daily occurrences. When we look at the bigger picture, we see that states with stricter gun laws, like New York, have lower rates of gun crime. My argument that gun laws help reduce gun crimes remains valid.

Regarding my opponent's argument, they question why my source doesn't explain the reasons for lower murder rates. The website was focused on presenting facts, not analyzing causes. It's challenging to understand why murder rates are lower in certain states because there are many factors at play. My opponent also suggests that my source was biased against gun control, but I was merely showing a graph that illustrates the United States' disproportionately high gun murder rate compared to other countries. My opponent's claim that countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Palestine have "non-existent" gun laws is incorrect. Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan have numerous gun laws, and in Palestine, although gun laws are scarce, only 125,000 people own guns out of a population of 4 million. Comparing Canada to Iraq is problematic because countries like Palestine are under military occupation, making it harder to obtain guns. My opponent asserts that Chicago has the highest violence rate, which is true, but Chicago also has the highest gang presence in the United States. Chicago is just one city in Illinois and not representative of the entire state. (Source: http://www.zeigen.com...). The graph shows a significant drop in 1934, which coincides with the establishment of the National Firearm Act. After the law was enacted, the murder rate dropped dramatically. Similarly, after the Crime Control Act of 1990 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 were passed, gun violence decreased once again. As you can see, there is a clear correlation between gun violence and gun laws. It's important to remember that gun control laws are just one factor in reducing murder rates. My opponent failed to provide credible sources regarding gun laws in other countries and did not present a compelling argument

To build this argument, It is best to start with the role of government. 1. The role of government is to act in the public's best interest. 2. The best interest of the people is for them to be totally independent IF they are responsible enough to handle it. (So ideally, I agree that guns should be legal in an ideal society. A goal to strive for. ) 3. However, Providing more freedom than a society can handle will be detrimental, As they will not be responsible enough to handle it. The government should provide as much freedom as a society could handle. If an analogy is needed: Think of a parent with a child. Ideally, They want the child to be independent, But they do not give the child total freedom when they are 2 years old. It is a gradual process where the parent gives them as much freedom as they can handle. 4. The USA is big enough that there exist multiple subcultures within it. While some cultures might have enough responsibility around guns to handle this freedom (Perhaps Texas). I believe some are not. 5. Take for example cities with high homicide rates like Chicago or Baltimore. These cities show signs of being irresponsible in this area, And therefore should not be given further freedom for the fear of them misusing it to hurt themselves or others. 6. So, To conclude, I believe that subcultures that cannot handle this freedom should have their guns banned until they show signs of cultural responsibility. Therefore, Banning guns is a proper method and should be done when needed. Allowing guns across the board will be detrimental.

Guns do kill people, And that's all they do, The only people who should have guns are law enforcement people who have to deal with these deranged lunatics who want to follow a 300 year old expired parchment called the Constitution. I could debate this until I'm blue in the face about how stupid it is to have guns but the trailer park rednecks will never change, So I say go ahead keep killing yourselves but when you hurt innocent lives than I say we start handing out life sentences to people who own guns. Your bipolar son decides to take your gun to school because he is being bullied, We execute him, And we jail you for life. Enough is enough with this senseless gun violence. Only paranoid people think they need a gun. Owning a gun has to be the stupidest thing you could do to your family. Some child will get their hands on it and shoot someone, Or it will be stolen and used by criminals, And you just helped them out by giving them your gun. I'm not going to keep going on and on about how having a gun is stupid, Stupid people you can't teach. So I will provide my resources about how stupid it is to own a gun https://nationalpost. Com/news/world/actually-guns-do-kill-people-according-to-a-new-study https://www. Rollingstone. Com/politics/politics-features/evil-doesnt-kill-people-guns-kill-people-126759/ https://www. Huffingtonpost. Com/entry/its-time-to-retire-the-guns-don't-kill-people-people_us_59e0f6d4e4b09e31db975887

I'll concede the debate. This is my first debate on gun control, and I do not really have an opinion on it (I just thought it would be fun to argue). Even if guns were made illegal to buy, there are already too many guns in circulation. There would be no way to know whether my argument holds or not. Thus, Con convinced me that his argument was better than mine.

You challenged me. If you honestly expected me to pass up the challenge and give you the points or however this system works simply because to argue in the precise format that you wanted was a bit more awkward than usual and my reply didn't seem to completely agree with what you were prepared for then you really really don't know me very well. I told you precisely why they shouldn't be prohibited. That to do so wouldn't sway these people even one bit, it would be a legislative waste of time, a method of appeasing bereaving families temporarily, but the time spent making such legislaon could have been better spent actually combating the problem rather than just putting down a flimsy barrier and hoping that'll stop them. These people are not exactly the humane type and they have beef with the Government as it is. Give them a reason to go further and they will go further. Try reading my post again. If it hurts your eyes then have someone else read it for you. Or you could try throwing holy water on it but that'd just mess with your computer.

Con says it's the parents' fault. How does he plan to solve for this? Does he offer a counter-proposal? I don't see one. He even admits that "parents with unstable or misbehaving children should nit have gun ownership," something that would require the gun control he so vehemently disagrees with. And, once again, I'm not taking away the right to wield guns, at least not that of anyone who can pass a background check. But more on that later.It is the parent's fault I am not saying homicide should be legal I am saying and defending the point of guns that if a child is not a normal child do not have a arsenal nearby. Gun control is not needed in order for that it is responsibilty that counts. Backround checks are made by the government and it is like stop and frisk. Backround checks have nothing to do with striter gun laws. Con mishandles this argument. First off, you'll note that suicide rates are higher in homes with guns than those without, he never responds to that. Second, note that states with background checks and higher restrictions on gun rights also have lower suicide and homicide rates on the whole. That's with these deadly "house knives." Third, I didn't claim that I'm solving for all of suicide. I don't see why I would have to in order to yield benefits in reducing the amount of suicide. Fourth, knives and hammers are still a whole lot less effective when committing suicide than guns. It normally only takes a single trigger pull, versus multiple attempts at slashing or pounding. The damage caused by these two items is often treatable as well.I never said that guns dont increase sucide your saying that since we have guns it is easy to kill eachother. And so? If the person wants to die let him be. In certain cases their nees to be sucide which are during- school shootings.And knives dont even take a minute and you can still kill yourself should we take control of knives. Also people kill themselves with cars should we have stricter laws People can steal guns." This is a common argument, but it doesn't hold much water. First off, as I stated, more guns are likely to be locked up and kept that much further from the hands of intruders. Second, this still requires an extra step, forcing these criminals to break into houses known to contain guns without their own to start with. That means fewer are likely to do it, since the risk of injury or death dramatically increases, and the payoff is just getting back to where they are now. Third, even you buy this wholesale, it's not a reason to do nothing. People break the law. That doesn't mean that the law is no good, it just means enforcement needs to be improved. As for gangs and mafias, again, we can't solve for every kind of criminal getting any guns. These groups will have a harder time of it, but I don't doubt that they will sometimes manage to get guns. That just puts us back in status quo, which is what Con is arguing for. I don't doubt that some criminals "can be smart," but fewer will be able to acquire guns, and next to none of them will be able to do so legally. I didn't say that all criminals were poor, and no, that was not an assertion, it was sourced from Maurice Ward, a Juvenile Justice Program Administrator for Washington State (my [8]). If my opponent would care to provide a competing link, he may do so. I realize that handguns are destructive (though, I would say that Con's only hurting his case by stating this), and background checks and registries would still solve for this. They are not as destructive as assault or semi-automatic rifles (my [9] and [10]).Hnadguns are destructive and I am not hurting my case. You said that guns should have a stricter purpose. Hand guns are very accurate and can kill and people need them in their households. Criminals do not obey laws they can still find a way to break through doors. People could send and make bots and break open the door with heavy explosive bombs. And what if those criminals robbed a bank with 1,0000000000 in it they would be able to afford bombs. "...states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher."[2]I have nothing o refute withI think I was a poor represenative and I feel like I might go back to my old self defending gun control

Okay, let us start with why the 2nd amendment exists. It was made to make sure that the Citizenry will be able to keep control in the event that a Tyrannical Government came into power either through a coup d'etat of the "state" or foreign invasion. In an expanded interpretation this can include defence of private property such as fending off a robbery. Here's the problem and this will serve as my argument for this round. According to FBI, more people are called with blunt objects and human hands than by Guns. Should we abolish blunt objections, how about hand to hand combat? If there are things that contribute to mass scale deaths such as smoking, drunk driving and let smoking isn't illegal, cars aren't illegal and why because as with everything that is illegal, the black market will take over and going forward you'll end up with an internal war with gangs and other black market members. Also what about Police officers and Law abiding citizens? Should we disarm police? How will we keep order? Also, why should I a law abiding citizen lose my gun rights? You see basically the argument is this. P1. The issue of shooting crime is not enrooted in Guns P2. Gun Control will make the situation worse Com. Therefore Guns should not be abolished.

Common sense dictates by the law of probability that the more deadly weapons there are out on the streets, the more chance there is of them being used to kill or murder someone. The argument is not a ban will prevent all killing but will in fact reduce killing both intentional and unintentional deaths. A weapon with the deadly power of a assault rifle should NOT be allowed in a public space nor should it be widely available. They are designed to kill and kill in numbers. That"s why they are used in war theatres. Yes there will still be horrific events of such where deluded people walk around and kill innocent by standards but the simple fact is the a assault rifle has much more killing potential than any other widely available weapon, fact! . Even if horrific events still occur the casualty numbers will be reduced. Surely to even save the life of one innocent child is worth it.

Well, actually I misunderstood and it is my fault. I only read your opening statement and thought you were for gun control. I, however, am not and am glad to see that you are as well. Then, I saw afterwords, that I had taken on the side of "pro" on gun control. I'm sorry for this error and I hope that we can sometime soon debate again.

To begin, the topic of this controversial debate is gun control legislation and deterring crime. My adversary is attempting to defend his/her claim on this topic being a broad topic to discuss his/her irrelevant rocket launcher example. The topic is an implicit title of the debate and if reading the opening statements, it should be very clear what the specifics of the debate are precluded to be based on. Since in my opening statements starting the debate with the Sandy Hook Massacre, the gun control legislation that is currently taking place is explicit towards the provisions of what is to be legislated upon in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Massacre. So therefore, rocket launchers being used as an example are an absolute absence within the provisions of our current legislation, and is an irrelevant example to use. Furthermore, my adversary is attempting to clarify his/her statement of contradictory, but manages to contradict himself/herself even more. Stating that "Obviously, people will always be ale to get what they want in some form or fashion, but banning assault rifles will make it significantly more difficult and dangerous to obtain an assault rifle". My adversary is well aware that people will no matter what kind of legislation is passed, will be able to obtain an assault rifle, but still states that it will make it significantly more difficult to do. Well once again this type of legislation does nothing, but hurt the law abiding citizen who follows the laws. This only affects the criminals who already do not abide by the laws, hence criminals being labeled as criminals for the crimes that they commit, such as breaking a law of illegally obtaining an assault rifle, just like Adam Lanza had done. I also had stated that there are multiple logical reasons to obtain a firearm when my adversary claimed that "other for hunting" there would be no logical reason to obtain an assault rifle. My adversary even admits that this makes sense, but claims that this fact to obtain them is "ridiculous". Well I find fault in this statement because an American citizen practicing their rights is not "ridiculous". These assault rifles are collectors items and used responsibly by a substantial majority of citizens and gun advocates, because they are fully aware of the immense power of this weapon's capabilities. "Gun ranges could have specific licenses allowing them to keep assault rifles in stock for customers to use on a gun range, simple solution". This is sure not a simple solution when the rights of law abiding Americans are infringed upon. "The simple fact is that the tiny amount of benefits that come from owning an assault rifle don't come close to outweighing the negative aspects that these guns being sold over the counter bring to society". How is it that an extraordinary amount of citizens obtain assault rifles, but very little crimes are done annually by them? The Federal Bureau of Investigations confirms statistics: "There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records. In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles." (1) A small amount of Americans are claiming assault rifles are a problem, but according to consistent crime statistics of much credibility, state otherwise. It states here that hammers, clubs, hands, and fists are more lethal than assault rifles. So does this mean we need to take hammers and clubs away because they cause a lot of crime? Of course we wouldn't because that would be an outrageous legislation considering hammers and clubs are used for various activities that are beneficial to society other than for crimes, such as hammers for construction purposes or clubs taking various forms as a golf club or a baseball bat. Hammers and clubs have various uses just as assault rifles have various uses. But hammers and clubs are not being legislated upon control but cause more crime annually than assault rifles do. When my adversary states that the Framers of the Constitution "had no way of knowing what technology would be available to United States citizens' in today's world" is an uninformed assertion. Framers of the Constitution were well aware that as times change, everyone else in society changes. "The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change over time. But the application of those principles must evolve as society changes and as experience informs our understanding" (2). Of course it would be absolutely ignorant of anyone to have concrete laws that do not change overtime as mankind does. But the fact of the matter is the Framers of the Constitution developed core principles to uphold throughout our democracy. Being aware that legislation will take affect to adhere to the current situations of our times, the fact of the matter is that core principles are to be the foundation of the legislation. Therefore, the specific text in the 2nd Amendment is to not be altered, but the contemporary times that we are living in need to adhere to these principles for just and equal legislation. This does not make it okay to legislate against the people's will, because the Constitution allows flexibility within it's provisions. Furthermore, to state that I am "blatantly ignorant" is an unnecessary statement due to the fact I am very aware of the economical situation of the United States' education system. The fact that our government pointlessly spends taxpayers' money for unnecessary entities, is a disgrace, and is so wrong. Examples of our country spending an astronomical amount of money on unnecessary entities is; The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it, the federal government once spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos, China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn"t stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China, the U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly, and the list goes on (3). So my adversary likes to state that arming guards at schools when 90% of teachers across America want them, "the amount of money to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy". By seeing where taxpayers' money goes unnecessarily, when it should be going into a program to help our own country is opposed to others is not impractical. So supposedly, it would cost $23 billion to do this according to a Cleveland State University Economics professor, but our country has spent millions on frivolous entities and not the safety of our country? If the money was not put into other countries, pointless research studies on responsible drinking for prostitutes, and a soccer field creating recreation for people plotting attacks on our country their whole lives, we can substitute this money into our schools. And my adversary stating what would we do for shopping malls and movie theaters? That's simple, because we have police already patrolling these areas, but there are no police guarding schools leaving them the most susceptible to crime. In my closing statements, I will state that gun control legislation does nothing to deter criminals from the commission of crimes, because breaking the law is what they do. This legislation infringes upon the Constitutions' fundamental rights. Sources (1)http://www.newsmax.com... (2)http://www.democracyjournal.org... (3http://endoftheamericandream.com...

I'm fine your first paragraph and shall jump to the second. How many people in the United States want a tyrannical dictator? You want to disarm the people that are the main premise of your argument. Let us see what Thomas Jefferson one of the Founding Fathers had to say on the matter. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. I also want to review historical gun control and the terrible results. Turkey: Gun Control established in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million defenceless Armenians were murdered by the government China: Gun Control established in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 2o million defenceless political dissidents were murdered by the state Guatemala: Gun Control established in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenceless Mayan aboriginals were murdered by the state. Germany: Gun Control established in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 13 million defenceless civilians were murdered by the state Soviet Union (Russia): Gun Control Established 1929. From 1929 to 1953 nearly 20 million defenceless dissidents were murdered by the state. Uganda: Gun Control established 1970. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 defenceless Christians were murdered by the sate. Cambodia: Gun Control established in 1956. 1975 to 1977 defenceless 1 million educated people were murdered by the state. So I really want to pin down the argument that getting rid of weapons will reduce death and crime. I should've down this in more detail earlier. Now I am going to make the assumption and I think you believe this premise. P1. The more legally owned guns, the more homicides by gunpoint there will be P2. P1 is confirmed by statistical data which itself is true P3. Countries with less legally owned guns, have lower homicides by shootings P4. Guns should be abolished Is this argument factual? Let's find out. Even though the United States has more "mass shootings" (A term that has no universal definition) per capita than Norway and Finland. It cannot be denied that more people die on average in the Norway, Finland and Switzerland shootings than in the United States and all these countries have more gun control than America. According to The Corner violent crime has been on the decrease since the 1990s. In fact, some of the worst shootings in American history such as Columbine took place in where? GUN FREE ZONES. Also, some of the shootings such as the San Bernardino were classified as terrorist attacks and gang violence related attacks, not shootings caused by legal gun attainment. So that proves that the issue goes beyond guns. To further back this up studies show that 80% of gun-related homicides were drug-related. Now, what about suicide. Firs the United States does not have an abnormal suicide rate. According to worldatlas.com, The US doesn't even make the top 25 suicide rate list. It is also important to note that many of the countries that do make this list such as Japan and South Korea have a very tough gun control laws. Let me expand my statement. When Australia implemented its new Gun Laws. The Suicide rate stayed relatively the same. Now let's talk about using guns for the security of the person using an example. In the United Kingdom which you have correctly stated has tougher gun control than the United States 52% of burglaries happen when the victim is home, unlike the U.S. where the figure is 13%. Ask yourself why is that? In Europe, more rape crimes where the victim was defenceless is on the rise. So what about P1. of what I believe is your argument. Does more legally owned guns mean more homicides. The answer is no. When comparing gun ownership to homicides. The U.S. ranks 28th on the scale. Australia ranks higher than this list. Gun homicides in the United States caused by legal gun holders have dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011. The main gun homicide happens from gangs in nig populated cities like Chicago. So do you see the problem is not guns. I have addressed all your other points before.