Gun control laws need to reform and change
theyoungdem said 04/24, 07:24 PM
Massacres in college campuses, murderes in streets, robberies, and more are all caused by a lack of gun control. According to the constitution we have the right to bear arms. Though, let's think about this logically.
This was written almost 230 years ago, back then people greatly feared another type of monarchy and even Indian attacks. 230 years ago, guns seemed to be necessary in every household. Now that our country reached such excellence, with a strongly reliable police, high achieving government (compared to other countries), and other great qualities, the need for a gun should restrict to either hunting purposes or occupation purposes (i.e. police, soldier, etc), other than that we have no need for guns, the end result of there being a great reform in gun control would mean less deaths and less agony.
Pablo the Great said 04/25, 04:04 PM
Every time some nutjob goes on a killing spree, there's always a call for a ban on non-hunting rifles. The fact is that banning guns because a single person has gone a little crazy is nonsensical. It would be akin to banning cars because people die when driving. In fact, 42,884 Americans died in car accidents during 2003[1], while there were 13,229 non-suicide gun deaths in the United States that same year.[2]
Guns stop murderers. Don't believe me? Vice Principal Joel Myrick stopped a massacre with his .45[3].
In fact, one town, Kennesaw, Georgia, has made gun ownership mandatory (for legal owners, and exemptions for nearly any reason). The town's burglary rate dropped 89%, and it had a lower overall crime rate than neighboring towns.[4]
Besides the fact that when the populace is disarmed, only criminals have guns, the US Constitution covers gun ownership: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."[5]
If someone wants to go crazy and kill people, they will, using whatever they can get their hands on.[6] Guns allows people to defend themselves. It is not practical to carry around a sword/etc., but a handgun can protect you from an assailant.
theyoungdem said 04/26, 01:18 PM
You and I both know that the cry for gun control is not invoked by a single nutjob. Cars are used for transportation, and not for means of killing, accidents unfortunatley occur, and there are many laws regulating the roads to prevent accidents as much as possible.
Guns are means of killing. You are comparing to ban a mean of killing to ban a mean of transporting.
It's true gun can stop murderers, but you have to keep in mind if the gun control laws were enhanced then there would be a vast amount less murderes with guns. You give me one situation where a gun stopped a massacre, but what about guns that caused many school shootings, many campus massacres, many armed robberies?
That article you used to get the information on Kennesaw, states that the law to have guns might have helped deter crime, but it was mainly due to "proactive policing and close police liaison with community and business groups." Also I don't know how well that law is since, its not a true mandate, since 50% of the people don't have guns there( as stated in your article)
The second ammendment is also not a RIGHT to bear arms, see below in the comments section the orginal intent and purpose for it.
Pablo the Great said 04/28, 05:31 PM
Guns were not designed to kill innocent people, just as cars were not designed to kill people. They both do, it's a sad fact, but very few things are safe. To ban guns would set a dangerous precedent, cigarettes, alcohol, hell, even fatty foods all cause more deaths every year than guns do.
Notice how so many massacres happen in "safe zones", where law abiding citizens are unarmed? Criminals know this, and therefore attack where people are vulnerable. When was the last time a person tried to mug someone at a gunshow?
And banning guns, again, won't stop massacres. In fact, the largest massacre of schoolchildren on American soil was carried out without the use of a gun. [1]
You have showed no evidence of your claim that "if gun control laws were enhanced then there would be a vast amount [of] less murders with guns" The reason is simple, the numbers (unless you go to the Brady's of course) aren't there. Guns in the hands of the citizenry help deter crime, for when we ban guns, only criminals are armed.
The Second Amendment is a right to bear arms. Please tell me how "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." can mean ANYTHING else.
theyoungdem said 04/28, 08:12 PM
Guns were designed to kill people/animals. It is the owner???s choice if the owner wishes to kill innocent or not innocent people, either way the owner intentionally kills. Cars were designed to transport people. It is the owner???s unfortunate mistake if he accidentally crashes. Cigarettes, alcohol, and fatty foods, are all consumed by us by our own will. Are you saying in massacres, people die by their own will? If someone drinks alcohol, they might say ???This booze is great!???, do people say ???This massacre is great!??? during a massacre? An we all know that death by guns, are caused directly by the gun most of the time, deaths by things such as alcohol, they cause a cause which causes death, indirect. Just pointing out a difference.
Notice how many shootings occur outside of gun free zones. If the gun was never obtained in the first place, then no one could have brought a gun to the ???safe zone.??? Also you ask when was the last time a person tried to mug someone at a gunshow? I don???t know really I don???t keep up with the latest gunshow gossip. When was the last time someone tried to mug a McDonalds?
(The rest of my argument is in the comments section, due to length)
Pablo the Great said 05/01, 07:21 PM
Trying to make the issue of gun control humorous doesn't help your argument,it only makes you look immature.
Also, cars kill people who do not do anything stupid, more people died because of drunk driving than non-suicidal gun deaths, so are we now to ban alcohol, as well as cars?
You said "notice how many shootings occur outside of gun free zones" (I'm going to assume that was a question.) No, I don't. The majority of shootings with high casualties occur inside of gun-free zones, malls, schools, stadiums, etc.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Nice, youngdem!! I agree entirely. In fact, it is a typically conservative notion that we must read the Constitution as the founders intended it - i.e., in the context in which it was written. This is one issue on which I wholeheartedly disagree with conservatives and Libertarians. I had a handgun - a Glock 19 - and it was stolen from my house in a burglary. Now I lament that I added another gun to the streets.
DonkeyDude | 04/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
Gotta love wikipedia: Relative to the "bear arms" meanings, one study found "...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the 'bear arms' expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service". Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."
DonkeyDude | 04/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
Fair warning, I won't be posting tonight, but tomorrow when I have time I'll get out a good argument.
Pablo the Great | 04/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks donkeydude. I'll be looking forward to it, Pablo.
theyoungdem | 04/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
Pablo, let's steamroll this one, i'm currently going over a similar topic w/ DD, which seems to be pretty close at the moment. i'd venture to say that all of these things youngdem mentions are caused by the overregulation of guns.
MorgMcA | 04/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Morg, the context of our debate is pretty specific, and I didn't respond today because you raise some great points and I really want to think about my position before I just blab on. But I am happy to debate you about this exact topic as well, provided these guys don't hit on everything we'd like to discuss.
DonkeyDude | 04/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Sure DD. don't worry about your taking time, i took i too, remember. i'd be happy to debate with you on almost any topic, it's refreshing to see someone bring up solid points.
MorgMcA | 04/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
References: 1:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_accident#Death_and_injury_statistics 2:http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/phil.html 3:http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm 4:http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSN1719257620070418 5:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text 6:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23762935/
Pablo the Great | 04/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Youngdem, feel free to jack my (er.. Wikipedia's) argument re: the Second Amendment. And Pablo, the cars thing is a straw man argument and you know it. And your anecdotal evidence doesn't prove much except that you know how to research examples to support your point.
DonkeyDude | 04/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
My only point on the cars was that simply because something causes deaths doesn't mean we ought to automatically ban its use.
Pablo the Great | 04/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Man, I don't want to mess this debate up, I'll either post a strong argument later tonight or tommorow, I just got home and feel very sick.
theyoungdem | 04/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Give 'em hell, youngdem! This is a tough one, but you'll be fine. Feel better soon.
DonkeyDude | 04/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, the Constitution was pretty clear with the Third Amendment, in regard specifically to soldiers and military personnel. If the ''spirit of the law'' implies that the second amendment was also meant for soldiers, the evidence shows that the founding fathers would have been a little more explicit. I'll pass on looking to an Oxford dictionary interpret American Constitutional law.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment Introduction The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms. The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
theyoungdem | 04/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
the youngdem the fact that school zones are gun-free zones i suppose has nothing to do with the fact that they are frequently locations for massacres if anyone's interested here's a link www.concealedcampus.org it's a grassroots organization lobbying to allow students to carry on campus
MorgMcA | 04/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
Good job, youngdem. You undercut his argument well, but you also went on the offensive. This is your best debate yet.
DonkeyDude | 04/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
This is going to be a hard one to go against, Was going to but I highly doubted I could win. Going against the constitution = hard debate. Kudos to you Pablo the great and good luck.
Tyler Cole | 04/24/08
Report Offensive Comment