8D- Topic 1- Right to Bear Arms
More Restrictions
Side Score: 16
|
 |
Less Restrictions
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Americans should have the right to own a gun with more restrictions than there are today. This is to ensure the safety of those who have no need to feel constantly victimised. The amendment states that everyone has the right to bear arms, but most might agree that there should be more restrictions to owning one. Side: More Restrictions
1
point
The standards you need to meet to get a gun in the US are not hard to reach, and easy to lie about. Although everyone has the right, some things should be looked at more closely, if every citizen in the United States were to bear arms, the crime and homicide rate would go up by a lot as it did in 2015, when it went up by 3.3%, when you take 50 states into consideration it's a lot, which is never good. Side: More Restrictions
1
point
The information to own a gun can be asked by anyone, they are usual questions. This is too little information required to own a gun, there should be more. As stated before by Sofia S. one page of yes and no questions that anyone can lie about is not good enough. Side: More Restrictions
1
point
1
point
1
point
There are too many unintentional firearm deaths. “110 unintentional firearm deaths to children 0–14 annually in the U.S.” A restriction could be to keep it hidden, away from children’s reach. https://everytownresearch.org/ Side: More Restrictions
1
point
I disagree. This is because if you think guns are killing people, you are wrong. What kills people are people. People are the ones with the guns which means if you want to reduce gun deaths because of suicides or child suicides, people should lock away their guns. Side: More Restrictions
1
point
I disagree because people use guns to kill people. If we restrict guns, there will be a lower death rate. For example, people with mental illness should not be allowed to own a gun. Also, statistics show that suicide is the highest death rate caused by firearms, most people who suicide have a mental illness. https://everytownresearch.org/ https://afsp.org/about-suicide/ https://afsp.org/about-suicide/ Side: Less Restrictions
1
point
I disagree because people use guns to kill people. If we restrict guns, there will be a lower death rate. For example, people with mental illness should not be allowed to own a gun. Also, statistics show that suicide is the highest death rate caused by firearms, most people who suicide have a mental illness. https://everytownresearch.org/ https://afsp.org/about-suicide/ https://afsp.org/about-suicide/ Side: Less Restrictions
1
point
I disagree because people use guns to kill people. If we restrict guns, there will be a lower death rate. For example, people with mental illness should not be allowed to own a gun. Also, statistics show that suicide is the highest death rate caused by firearms, most people who suicide have a mental illness. https://everytownresearch.org/ https://afsp.org/about-suicide/ https://afsp.org/about-suicide/ Side: Less Restrictions
1
point
I disagree because each time someone is killed, they are the ones who pull the trigger not the gun. The gun doesn't go off on it's own. You should check your facts right before saying that mentally ill people should be restricted because Second Amendment already has may restrictions because it isn't an unlimited right already. People who are mentally ill don't have a right to carry a gun. Side: More Restrictions
1
point
Although there are many factors that support having less and more restrictions, more restrictions will limit homocide, suicide and unintentional accidents. People with mental illness should have harsher restrictions. but the right all together cannot be taken away from anyone. This is why having more restrictions on guns is the best way to go. Side: More Restrictions
|
1
point
1
point
1
point
The second amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. This amendment has been a tradition for the United States so they can’t just take the amendment away. Most people use guns for self defense meaning that if they take this right away, a lot of people won't feel safe anymore. Side: Less Restrictions
1
point
1
point
Yes, I agree. What you forgot is that adding more restrictions would still be changing the second amendment in some way because people would either have harder access to a gun or not even have access. This is changing the second amendment because the second amendment states anyone can own a gun. Side: Less Restrictions
1
point
Unfortunately, this is not the message we are trying to get across. We are trying to restrict, not take away. “Charlotte has experienced a number of drug-related murders as well as homicides related to domestic violence and is projected to see a 13.4% increase in violent crime this year.” The times, news article -http://www.latimes.com/opinion/ Young people like charlotte are feeling victimized because of unauthorized people having guns or other weapons. This is another reason why more restrictions should be required, such as looking at ancestral history , medical history, and recent check ups or events that could lead to trauma or mental disorder which could possibly endanger the lives of others. Side: More Restrictions
1
point
As I have previously stated, people kill people, not guns kill people. Additionally, I understand you want to restrict and not take away, but restricting will mean that the amendment will be changed and americans don't want their amendment to be changed. Side: Less Restrictions
1
point
Having more restrictions is impractical as tried by the Obama administration due to the NRA (national rightful association) who use lobby groups to influence politicians into declining any laws impacting gun control. For example, after a school massacre, Obama tried to enforce a law where there would be more background checks for potential buyers. Members of the NRA threatened senators with letters, emails, phone calls, and appearances at town hall meetings to convince them that if they voted for the laws with more restrictions,it would jeopardize their chances of being reelected. Supporting evidence - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ Side: Less Restrictions
1
point
1
point
1
point
Increasing the restrictions and laws for gun control won’t stop gun crime. For example, Chicago has extremely high gun restrictions, and yet still has too many gun crimes. This is because in 2014, when Chicago had extremely strict gun laws, there were 2,587 shooting victims. If you compare this to New York, who had less restrictions and had around three times as many people as Chicago, there were 1,381 victims in the same time period. Supporting Evidence - https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ Side: Less Restrictions
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
