Should the United States adopt a form of gun control?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by prsabordo, Nov 2, 2010.

  1. prsabordo

    prsabordo New Member

    8
    0
    0
    Hey everyone, i have a debate on this topic and i had to be on the pro side of it, that means i am for the proposition that the U.S should adopt a form of gun control. Now I know many people are against it, but its a debate for my communications class. Thing is i can't seem to find any evidence to support the pro side. I was wondering does anyone have any hard evidence (court cases, reputable statements, proper research studies) that can support the pro of gun control and does anyone know where i can find this stuff?
     
  2. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    The right to defend your life, the lives of your family, friends and neighbors, and the right to retain your property is inarguably a natural right. So you can't build a cogent argument for gun control if you understand that.

    Therefore, tear a page out of the leftist-collectivist handbook and declare that all rights are bestowed by society and that no individual rights exist in nature. You can build a sound argument for gun control on that premise while simultaneously exposing the fallacy in the premise. Win-win.
     

  3. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  4. spittinfire

    spittinfire New Member Supporter

    9,663
    4
    0
    I think you'll have a hard time finding anything to support the arguement for gun control because time and time again it fails at doing what anti-gunners claim it will do.
     
  5. DonnyKC

    DonnyKC New Member

    202
    0
    0
    The only people gun control that benefit from gun control is the government and criminals
     
  6. Squirrel_Slayer

    Squirrel_Slayer New Member

    1,128
    0
    0
    I always thought gun control was using both hands to fire.
     
  7. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    2
    0
    Sure. Gun control. There has ONLY been about 650,000,000 people wiped off the planet because they were not as well equipped and well prepared as the tyrants that wanted to impose their will upon the masses.

    The reason you are having a hard time finding evidence to support gun control is because you can't find a true, scientific study that less guns equals less crime that wasn't prepared by pixies, held together with fairie dust and viewed thru the lens owned by the Rabbit from Wonderland. :rolleyes:

    On the other hand, there have been hundreds of studies and examples given that a well armed and trained populace actually leads to LESS crime.

    Why?

    The very definition of being a criminal is someone that doesn't abide by laws and rules. Thus, if you take away small arms from law abiding citizens who were trained to use them, criminals will still be able to use them because they don't care about your laws.

    If you can't understand that simple equation, then you really don't understand the problem.

    JD
     
  8. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    As usual, our esteemed moderator nailed this one.

    The fact is there ARE NO logical, factual arguments that support gun control - and there never will be...
     
  9. Glasshartt

    Glasshartt New Member

    1,893
    0
    0
    Gun control is being able to hit your target!!
     
  10. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,515
    819
    113
    OK- can we start by defining the term "Gun Control" ? Do you mean a blanket prohibition against firearms? Do you mean laws governing owning, and the sale of, firearms and ammunition?

    Let's take a stroll thru the library, and down memory lane. Over there on the shelves of the library are the various laws in the US about firearms. Oh- you did not realize there were that many? Well, yes, there are about 20,000 laws already on the books that impose limitations on making, importing, selling, possessing, carrying, and using guns. Yes, that was not a typo- about 20,000. Hard to tell just how many, because the politicians keep trying to change the number. For what it is worth, it is already against the law to possess a gun if you have been convicted of a felony, have been adjudged mentally incompetent, are a drug addict, and so on. Of course, since there are laws against breaking into your house and stealing your TV, THAT does not happen- right? Point 1- Criminals do not obey the law.

    Now, over on memory lane, let's take a look at the history of gun control laws. You see, those laws were needed to keep guns out of the hands of the "wrong people". However, "wrong people" depends on the time, and where you were. At various times, the wrong people have been American Indians, slaves, free blacks, Irish, Chinese- and especially people that have a different political view than you do. In Europe, firearm ownership was denied to the Jews- one of the reasons that 6 million of them could be rounded up like cattle, and gassed.

    Point 2. Are YOURS the wrong hands?

    As long as we are over here on memory lane, why not take a look at the view of the founders of the US on guns. You can start with Thomas Jeffereson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason- father of the Bill of Rights. And the folks trying to keep those unruly colonists in line. Royal governors of Virginia and Mass.

    Of course, that is all acient history- why not look at a couple of modern day nations with VERY strict gun control laws, and see how that is working for them. Check the increase in violent crime in England. Oh- and Mexico has some of the most stringent gun control laws. How's THAT working for them?

    Point 3. There is a difference between a citizen and a subject. A citizen creates a government to insure the preservation of rights given him by God. A subject is ruled.
     
  11. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    4
    0
    Well said c3.
     
  12. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,748
    515
    113
    My signiture says it all in 2 quotes. Check out the NRA website.
     
  13. Theunsb

    Theunsb New Member

    110
    0
    0
    Would anybody support the permit system for getting permission from government to have sex or children or even breathing?:mad:
     
  14. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    First you need to determine the answer to C3's question. Are you talking about a strict no guns policy or allowing guns but controlling quantities, ammunition, etc.

    My suggestion for the best route would be to address the safety issue, research accidental shootings and unintended deaths due to misuse of guns by otherwise law abiding citizens. Another argument you could try to make is that gun control is an all or none issue, take the stance that anti gun control means a literal 2A interpretation. This means that anyone of any age or any criminal background or any legal status has the right to bear any arms, nuclear weapons are not limited under a literal interpretation. You get out of jail for murder and you are immediately allowed to buy a fully auto weapon, you could even argue that the government would have no right to control the arms ownership of prisoners. Get the other side to admit any of these and you should win the debate(if only on technicalities) depending on the exact wording of the debate topic.

    I'm not saying they are great arguments but they are the best I can think of and your not going to find many anti gun opinions on this board, were all a bit biased on that issue. :)
     
  15. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    Everybody knows guns are inherently dangerous in the hands of the common jackwagon so let's just get rid of them. While we are about searching everyones home, office, barn and outhouse for the weapons we know will be hidden, lets insure they have no knives or scissors with sharp points. Let's confiscate all the ball bats, golf clubs, rolling pins, shovels, pitch forks, and anything else that someone might, in our estimation, use to inflict bodily injury on another human being.

    Let's also require that during every waking moment, each individual shall wear big fluffy pillow looking things on their hands, head and feet to keep them from attacking each other with their bodies.

    This is a moral discipline issue, not a weapons issue. If people reach the level of desperation where they are willing to take another's life, they will attempt to do it, regardless of whether they have access to weapons or not.

    Work on changing that atttitude and creating a belief in the sanctity of life and you will see better results.
     
  16. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    4
    0
    Well said Dune.
     
  17. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    2
    0
    The CDC has the stats on deaths in the USA. See;

    Broker Version 8.1 (Build 1366)

    I could spend some time perusing the data, but motor vehicle accidents kill far more people than guns.

    Does gun control work? Yes it does work to protect the oppressors from the populace. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. It worked very well to enable them to gain and maintain power over their people and systematically eliminate hundreds of millions of people from the earth.
     
  18. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    4
    0
    The Second Amendment is quite clear and succinct.

    Not gonna argue.
     
  19. tomgodd

    tomgodd Active Member

    1,236
    1
    38
    Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  20. Cory2

    Cory2 New Member

    575
    0
    0
    basicly you are going to have to use the typical argument of the ignorant leftists... "guns are bad mmkay?" and "when britain destroyed all of those guns gun crimes went down" ... indeed they did.. crime didnt go down but gun crime did because there were alot less guns... leave that second part out though.