This still doesn't explain why countries such as the UK or France which do not allow guns have far less gun crime than the USA. I feel that the argument for guns in the USA is driven by a patriotic backing of the American constitution, there is no need for everyone to have a gun. I can't see how it is not blatantly clear that if guns are illegal, there is less gun crime. Surely this is the case. I agree that it will not occur overnight, this will probably induce a black market for firearms however in the long term I think that banning guns will reduce gun crime.

On the point on Australia, The United States is a very developed country and if illegal guns were provided for under a black market I would have thought they would be, by majority be manufactured illegally in the USA anyway, not imported. The first step in reducing gun crime, is to ban guns. A similar approach to the Australian scenario could be used, the government pays citizens the right price to hand their firearms into a deposit making most more than willing to give them up.

On the final point I think that banning firearms would dissuade a criminal to break into a house, If determined criminals have full access to firearms throughout the USA then I don't think the average citizen is going to be able to ward them off without posing injury or even death to themselves first. I think it is far better to drastically reduce the risk of being robbed in the first place.

Regards

As of now, many countries worldwide such as Somalia and Zimbabwe face growing food shortages. In 2011 drought caused nearly one in three Somalian children to be acutely malnourished in some areas, as well as grain prices increasing by 80% in the Juba region (Rice, 2011). With population at a surplus of 7 billion and expecting to double in the next 50 years (Whitman, 2013) it is only logical that we use the latest molecular biological advances in order to distribute more efficient GM crops in order to feed our rapidly growing population.

Genetically modified crops have countless advantages over unaltered variants. Pest resistant crops can be used that produce proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. This has the potential to drastically increase crop yields in areas where pests can severely damage harvests, therefore creating more food to be distributed and grown in poorer countries. Questions have been raised about insects becoming resistant to these plants, however no evidence has yet been shown as the time span has not been adequate for insects to evolve resistant genes. The benefits heavily outweigh the drawbacks, as 25% of the world’s cereals are depleted by insects every year (Gmo compass, 2014), an increase in yield such as this could radically decrease food prices and improve availability of food to LEDCs worldwide.

Another advantage of GM crops is that they can be altered to be resistant to periods of drought or frost. This has beneficial implications for countries in Africa such as Somalia and Ethiopia which often suffer from crop damage due to the dry dusty conditions and lack of water. Unfortunately there is a risk of these resistant crops interbreeding with varieties of weeds and creating ‘superweeds’ (Whitman, 2013). Although this could result in more problems than the GM crop solves, the issue could be overcome by simply inserting another gene that means the plant does not create fertile pollen. Regarding the numerous lives the extra food production could potentially save, this cannot be an adequate reason to halt GM crops.

As of now many farmers must rely on herbicides and pesticides to protect their crops from weeds and pest, GM crops could eradicate the need to do this. This means that poorer countries would no longer have the problem of not affording these chemicals some richer countries can. Newly industrialising countries have characteristics that lead to high birth rate such as limited access to contraception and child labour. Therefore GM crops must become available in these countries such as Somalia and India if we are realistically going to solve the world food crisis. We must proceed with caution, and use appropriate safety and testing measures so as not to harm the environment and consumers.

Genetically modified foods are the answer to our exponentially growing population. Unless we are willing to face mass starvation and rocketing food prices we must use this technology to our advantage. We cannot ignore this revolutionary method as it is the inevitable future for a happier, sustainable world.

Luke Waterhouse

Regards from the UK

Bibliography

Gmo compass. (2014). http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agribiotechnology/breedingaims/147.pestresistantcrops.html: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agribiotechnology/breedingaims/147.pestresistantcrops.html

Rice, X. (2011, February 3). http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/03/somalia-faces-malnutrition-emergency http://www.theguardian.com: http://www.theguardian.com

Whitman, D. B. (2013). http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php. http://www.csa.com: http://www.csa.com

I agree with you're argument Slapshot that Terrorists often use a religion falsely to support their deeds however surely you're argument shows that terrorism does not have a religion. Many terror groups are falsely claiming to be working under the influence of their God, whilst the vast majority of other practicers carry out worship peacefully and promote kindness and wellbeing. Surely it is a disservice to all of those people to say that they are part of that same religion as the terrorist groups?

Regards

Terrorism does not have a religion, I would also like to point out that many arguments on this forum are taking the assumption that we are talking about Islamic militant groups however this is not stated anywhere in the question. We could equally talk about the IRA and how they murdered many civilians in their conquest to create an independent Irish state often in the name of Catholicism. This does not mean that the breakaway of an Irish state is ingrained into the Catholic ethos it simply means that a specific militant group is trying to achieve its aims through terrorism and claiming to be doing it in the name of their god.

The official definition of terrorism is 'the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims' This shows that terrorism does not have to have anything to do with religion for example in Spain the breakaway of the Basque region has catalyzed bombings and killings in order to pressure the government into giving the region independence, this has no link to religion at all therefore showing that terrorism having a religion is irrelevant.

Although Islam is a peaceful religion when taking readings from the Qu'ran where it teaches forgiveness and kindness, many militant groups take the religion in its extremist form for example Al Qaeda. This shines a negative light on the Muslim community which vastly outnumbers the extremist minority often leading to tensions between ethnic groups despite Muslims practicing the religion peacefully and safely.

In conclusion Terrorism does not have a religion as violence which is in the definition of terrorism is not taught in any validated religions, however many terrorist organisations claim to be working under the influence of religions which can often lead to religions being perceived as violent.

I don't think there can be a good balanced argument against the banning of guns in America. America has the highest rate of gun crime in the world for a developed country (1) and is also a country in which it is very easy to obtain a firearm, surely this basic statement proves that if guns are legal then gun crime is higher! After the sandy hook massacre in Australia guns were subsequently banned and gun crime then plummeted showing that a ban on guns in America could well be the answer to reducing gun crime (2)

A common argument for not banning firearms is that a person would have no defense against an intruder however the banning of firearms would also mean it would be drastically more difficult for a potential criminal to get hold of such a weapon, reducing the incentive to undergo a burglary in the first place. Although having a firearm is one the the pillars of the American constitution I think this has become outdated and many patriots will have to accept that the way forward for a safer nation is to abolish the legality of firearms. The banning of assault rifles alone is not enough to ensure the safety of citizens as the majority of deaths by firearms in the USA are actually carried out by small arms (3). These are but a few of the points to condemn gun legality in the USA to support the banning of firearms to ensure a safer country. I look forward to reading an opposing view to my argument.

Luke Waterhouse

Regards from the UK

Sources:

1) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/ 09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/

2)http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735

3)https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type