should Americans have the right to own a gun with proper restrictions?
pro
Side Score: 33
|
 |
con
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
|
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy research results shows that during the 25‐year period from 1973 to 1997, the number of handguns owned by Americans increased 160% as well as the number of all firearms rose 103%. But in that period, the murder rate declined 27.7%. The murder rate continuously declined, and by the end of 2000, the rate of Americans owning guns steadily increased but the murder rates returned to the low level. http://www.law.harvard. Side: pro
Your argument is not sound because your information is invalid due to the fact that it only states information from 1973 to 2000. This link shows the murder and crime rates as well as numbers from 1960's to 2012. This also shows that your gathered information is outdated whereas ours is recent information (2012). Side: con
The studies of Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy shows that in the United States, the murder rate doubled in the ten‐ year span between the mid‐1960s and the mid‐1970s. Because in this period there were also vastly increasing gun sales. However, the statement of “more guns equal more death” does not follow. Due to the highly rising murder, burglary, and all kinds of violent crimes during that decade drove fearful people to buy guns for self-defence. Therefore, this research proves that more guns does not equal more death. http://www.law.harvard. Side: pro
2
points
over 800000 permits were given to the people of florida, this dropped the average homicide rate by 52% in the state, (http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm ) A harvard study has shown that states with more guns has less crime (http://www.theacru.org/harvardstudyguncontrolis_counterproductive/) Side: pro
it is proven that every year guns are used 80x more often in self defense than with the intent of harming a person without cause. This just goes to show that having citizens bear arms brings much more good than harm. This yet again goes to show that the American people should be able to arm themselves, in this sense anything that is commonly sold to the American people could be used as a ‘weapon’ but this doesn’t mean that you should go and ban kitchen knives, or a hammer which is found in many households. Source : Side: pro
People are not always using their guns appropriately and people may not hurt others on purpose however there have been cases of people accidentally killing or deeply injuring another person. The Death percentage by guns have increased by 32 % through the years 1965-2012, that includes the includes the amount of murder victims killed by a gun. Referring to your statement about using household items as weapons is also wrong, there are numerous amounts of objects that could be used as weapons, like for example scissors. The percentage of people who die of guns are drastically higher that the amount of deaths caused by household items. Would you not agree ? Side: con
1
point
According to a journal written by a Phd Dr named Gary Kleck and the texas handgun Association Website states that 55% of all criminals will flee if their victim is armed with a gun. (http://secondamendment1.weebly.com/pros-and-cons.html) every year since gun laws have been issued homicides have been reduced by about 8%, rape by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robberies by 3%, (http://secondamendment1.weebly.com/pros-and-cons.html and http://apecsec.org/ every year 200,000 women use guns to defend themselves against sexual abuse and rape (http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm) Side: pro
A employee for a car dealership inside of Tennessee, Texas was told by a masked suspect that he was being robbed, the employee then proceeded to pull our a firearm and shot our suspect in the chest. Without that firearm the employee may not have been able to defend himself and the car dealership. For reasons such as these, the American population should be allowed to bear arms in order to protect their property, their lives, and the lives of everybody around them, without a firearm this employee would not have been able to protect himself, but the criminal would still have found a way to attain a firearm through illegal means. Is this the kind of environment fit for the American people, an environment of fear. Guns provide a sense of safety, which is only fit, as people have the right to feel safe within their own property. Source : Side: pro
2
points
This argument is a good point but another likely bit information is that many of these guns used in robberies are legal, registered guns. In a fact in that either person may have died because of a registered gun so eliminating that factor could result with the two of them leaving with their lives. Side: con
1
point
Clearly shown from our datas and resources, allowing civilians to have access to guns will provide them self-defense as well as preventing mass of people dying out from the gun massacre incidents driven by criminals. Therefore, Americans should have the right to own a gun with proper restrictions Side: pro
|
2
points
You have disputed your own argument when you stated that 1527 criminals are killed by an armed civilian. The only way that an armed civilian would be able to kill the criminal is if they were able to own the gun. "If you kill the murderer, the quantity of murderers will not change" - Winston Churchill Side: con
You stated that the government should be trusted to protect their own people, well the average police response time in the U.S is 9 minutes long, and in a situation where every single second is crucial this response time is dreadful. In these 9 minutes there could be a casualty or injuries as the result of the people not being able to defend themselves, however the availability of guns to the American citizen would allow the people to fight for their own lives and not place it in the hands of Police that would reach them after 9 minutes. A case concerning this was when four armed men broke into a Florida home and began threatening the residents of this home, one of the residents attempted to call 911, and get help from the police, however the call was received by the fire department, and the dispatcher tried to transfer the call to the police department however the call was hung up and our victim received a voicemail message. As a result of this the 4 armed intruders injured the caller, two women in the household, and even threatened an infant with a gun. Is this the sort of police force that we want to trust with our very lives? In this case the caller had to take matters into his own hands, and armed himself with a handgun with which he shot one of the intruders in the back. The Department of Justice boasts that they have a best response time of 4 minutes, however this incident goes to show that a lot could happen within the span of 4 minutes. Source : Side: pro
When Christy Salters Martin attempted to leave her husband, she was shot with her own gun. She now says that “Just putting a weapon in the woman’s hand is not going to reduce the number of fatalities or gunshot victims that we have. Too many times, their male counterpart or spouse will be able to overpower them and take that gun away.” Side: con
There has been a case in the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting on December 14, 2012. There was a 20 year old man under the name of Adam Lanza, he killed 20 children and 6 adult staff members.This was the highest mass shooting in a school ever recorded in the USA. The reason Adam started the shooting was because him and his mom had a fight, due to this Adam was mad and wanted to give revenge. His idea of revenge was to shoot kids in the school his mom worked in. If the Adam or his family had not owned a gun or had not given him one, there would not have 20 innocent children dead. Side: con
Your argument is not valid, supported by the reason that if there was at least one adult, who owned a gun in the Sandy Hook Elementary School, there would have been less casualties and deaths of children and adult staffs by that one individual who could have defended themselves with the gun during that incident. Side: pro
0
points
1
point
People who have ready access to a firearm are almost twice as likely to be killed and three times likelier to commit suicide than those without a gun available in the home or from a neighbor or friend, a new study has shown. Men and women are 29% likelier to die in a gun homicide. America has the highest rate of gun ownership than any other country. The nation's gun-related homicide rate is higher than that of any other high income country, and its rate of suicides carried out with a gun exceeds 37%. These may not seem like large numbers, when in fact the number of people dying in the country should be 0. http://www.latimes.com/science/ Side: con
Your argument is not sound, due to, the resource of Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which shows the table of international deaths of United States vs. Continental Europe https://docs.google.com/document/d/ Side: pro
1
point
Charles Branas PhD, said that those people who are carrying a weapon for defend themselves are 4.5 times more at risk to be shot compared to those who don’t have a gun. It means that a gun might not be the most reliable type of self-protection. Side: con
Charles Branas PhD the very person whose studies you are using has stated that he doesn’t know yet whether guns are protective or perilous yet, this statistic could be due to the fact of random people acting poorly under tense situations. Therefor your statistic is irrelevant. Source : Side: pro
Your rebuttal is invalid, please read the first paragraph, the sentence, in the attached link. It states that a person who is carrying a gun is more likely to get shot. Side: con
1
point
John Massaro said that the second amendment does not state that individuals are allowed to be carrying a gun with them at all times, it says that the general public is allowed to store weapons in order to provide them whenever the militia needs it, in this case the National Guard. This right has been misinterpreted resulting in more death than needed. When this right was created there was a less organized militia and the weapons were more stored among the people. Now a-days people in the military don't take guns home it stays at the barracks which means that it was not intended for random people to have guns. Side: con
Your argument is not reasonable, due to, the example shown of "random people" owning guns used them for self-defense. According to Mitch Dudek in Chicago Sun-Times, Uber driver in Chicago stopped mass public shooting, since, concealed handgun was permitted in Chicago. The driver had already taken care of the situation before the police arrived. Side: pro
To conclude, the ownership of a gun has always been a threat to society. Many incidence have happened due to legalizing of these guns. As stated in the second amendment the militia and the government must be able to protect their people, and to insure this there should be no ownership of these guns. Without these guns there would be a decrease of murders, robberies, homicides, and rape/sexual assault. America is the land of the free, America was born upon liberty and protection. Side: con
1
point
1
point
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents. The gun violence in America is an American Shame! Side: con
|
