This is a high school debate, for a history class, anyone not in it like yourself is banned and anyone else floating in here and reading this don't bother typing you are not a high school student and need to find something else to busy yourself with that interrupting out education activity.
Thank you
First of all its not in the constitution itself, its simply an amendment, i think you should read about what your talking about before you go and time up and argument on it.
Here is the a the direct quote
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.
In oder for the state to be secure we cannot have deadly weapons used for looks like they are some new type of hot wheels made for fun and looks. Your constitutional right is to keep and bare arms, not guns, and for the safety of the state and all in it we need to take away simple dangers for citizens, cause eventually we need to stop playing with hot wheels and grow up.
"Guns are needed for self defense." Ive heard this so many times reading peoples pro-gun-rights stories, so to start of this argument against such a childish idea, let me give you a real and recent example.
Saturday, October 10, 2009,
Associated Press
"Right now everything points to a tragic accident," Police Chief Kevin Brunelle told The Associated Press, adding investigators were awaiting forensic results.
John Tabutt, 62, told investigators he got his gun when he thought he heard an intruder, then fired at a figure in the hallway, according to Brunelle. It was Tabutt's live-in fiancee, 62-year-old Nancy Dinsmore, who family members say he was going to marry Saturday. Tabutt told authorities he thought she was next to him in bed the whole time."
-
At this time please click the link at the bottom of this page and view the news video of the tragic 911 call. If you dont want to view the video, dont bother reading this.
-
Its traumatic accidents like that, that prove why using guns for defense, is dangerous no matter what. If that man had just tased the "intruder" they could still be alive and happily married. Some people may call this a one time accident, but people think of guns almost by default as necessary to self-defense. Infact all of the people "for" gun-rights used that idea and phrased it as the only way. But in no way is something as deadly as that gun, the only way.
Our school is a gun free environment, or better phrased, has gun control. Do students feel safe? Yes, because guns are not allowed so the fear of being shot is alot less. Could a gun be entered into a school? Yes but if it was fired, we have designated lockdown drills we have practiced and one schools shooting kills lots less then if we were to have guns everyday.
Think of america as an environment with guns available everyday. Imagine how many lives would be taken due to anger or other temporary emotional disabilities.
We cant keep amusing the worst of everyone around us. "They have guns, so we need guns as well to protect ourselves." Two wrongs like in that statement do not make a right. If everyone had gun control, wed have a "school" type of environment and while "schools shootings" or gun use in a gun-controlled setting would still occur, its much, much less then if we were all having guns on ourselves as "Defense".
We have come to a time when technology and idealisms are advancing, so should our policy on gun control. Self defense should just keep one safe, not kill off other humans. Innocent ones like a wife to be, or a robber who is just down on his luck. They are fellow humans, we shouldn't even get the change to flick and finger and fire a bullet at them. Especially when something as common as pepper spray and your pet rottweiler could keep you safer.
Guns dont need a rule book, people need to be trained in what they are using and most citizen have never taken a gun safety course. People do have rights but they should not have the right to end someones life because they were scared the MIGHT loose their own, and thats the self defense argument. If you wanna feel safe there are so many less barbaric and deadly options then a gun. We are humans, not deer. If you pepper spray and tase an intruder, what more can they do? They cant see or move...so they cant shoot you and they are still alive. We do have a free country, we should make it safe too.
I feel like im repeating myself. But to simplify what ive been saying, if the government had gun control they would start out with the high risk people such as criminals and work their way down. Not having guns would be an overall safer environment. A common environment like this is school. Some people argue that there are still school shootings and this is true and also related to your idea of "its just how things work." While their are school shooting they are vary rare, just like america would be if we didnt have guns. Schools also are prepared, remember doing those lock down drills? Our country would prepare us the same way. School shootings cause far less deaths then if schools were aloud on a daily bases to everyone (like america now). We should leave guns to the professionals and if we need to feel safe, we should protect ourselves without killing someone else.
The bill of rights does not state the an individual citizen has their own right to have their own gun, id read up on that before making that statement. People who live in a bad neighbor hood can move, or live in a protected shelter if moving is not an option. People who consider a neighborhood unsafe often think so because of guns. I myself often think "someones gonna come out and shoot me" when walking through bad neighborhoods. If citizens didn't have guns, that would make everyone feel that much safer. In unsafe neighborhoods, there would be one less worry of not getting hurt by some irresponsible citizen with a gun.
The about 80% of the "general public" dont even know a thing about gun safety. Although i agree that criminals should not possess guns, at least most of them know how to use it. Citizens trying to protect themselves should use something that wont kill people with a flick of a finger. Pepper spray can blind, tasers will stop someone wherever they stand, guns click and kill.
I said this in jacobs dispute, but if people were the ones killing people then it wouldnt matter if there was a gun involved.
Umm heres a visual
Person+Gun= -Person
(A person with a gun kills a person)
Take out the gun cause your saying its not its fault...
Person=-Person
If the gun wasnt responsible, and its the persons fault, then it wouldnt matter if the gun was there or not. But infact it makes quite the difference.
Your point about criminals finding illegal guns is just like illegal guns, something just cant be completely erased. But saying outlawing them would make gun rate increase cause they are illegal makes no logical sense. Take a place like school, we have no guns here, and in cases where shootings happen, its much less then i would be if people had guns everyday. Same goes for a biggerscale like the USA. We also have all been trained with the lock down drill, and im certain the government would issue something like that as well.
The people behind the guns "defending" themselves are just as trigger happy as any intruder. To just say guns should be aloud because criminals have them, is childish and we need to age past barbaric murder caused by guns.
This comment should be under brads statement, but to dispute. Timing may just be a statement but the guns are still the main focus. Guns shouldnt be allow because the defenders want to shoot just as much as the intruders. I think i covered this in more detail when i explained the pros of having citizens being gun free.
Even "If criminals keep their guns",(if we were to confiscate all guns) " they wont be able to use them. If no one had a gun in an area and one single shot was heard, the whole area would be on alert for that one shot and the gun would get confiscated. In countries like great britan where there is strict gun control, this happens all the time.
If we just assume its useless cause we have some criminals and just have to bare arms to balance it out then its just twice as dangerous, two lefts don't make a right.
Anyone that is considered a "criminal" is on record by the US government and will be searched before the citizens for that reason. The government is smart enough to realize that criminals would have guns, its not something thats just overlooked."
Even if a background check is preformed and comes out clean, most americans have no history of gun safety. Also, though americans may be "law abiding" they still are animals and have natural reactions, there is NO human alive that hasnt been startled before or scared. Its those feelings that provoke gun use as a defense in the first place. If you want defense against intruders, try a home alarm system, a loud barking dog will even warn you without killing someone. If you want to stop someone, use another form of defense like a taser. Some people may say, but what if they have a gun? If there was gun control, that couldnt be the case, yes there will always be violent people, but without guns there would be less dead people. At school no one has a gun, its just how it is, and in the cases where one was entered into the environment, there was a set plan to stay safe and the deaths are obviously lower from that event, then they would be if guns were aloud daily. Guns make room for emotional mistakes and kill the need for restraint.
I do think gun control will help this country and i am not mistaken. If criminals keep their guns, they wont be able to use them. Why? People if no one had a gun in an area and one single shot was heard, the whole area would be on alert for that one shot and the gun would get confiscated. In countries like great britan where there is strict gun control, this happens all the time. If we just assume its useless cause we have some criminals and just have to bare arms to balance it out then its just twice as dangerous, two lefts don't make a right.
Anyone that is considered a "criminal" is on record by the US government and will be searched before the citizens for that reason. The government is smart enough to realize that criminals would have guns, its not something thats just overlooked.
Although its not your idea, i think its still well formed. My dispute is that hunting and other recreational guns should be stored safely in the place where the recreation is taking place. For example, hunting guns should be stored under lock and key at those hunting grounds, then checked out and returned as not to take them home cause harm to non-deer life like humans.
As for the topic of self defense, guns should not be used as a common self defense. Why?
Lets use a simple example, your walking home in the dark its quite and you think someones following you so have your hand on the gun and keep walking, looking back. Suddenly a car pulls in front of you, startled you naturally turn around and shoot. Theirs no one behind you, but an innocent dead driver in front of you.
Its simple "accidents" like these account for most deaths. Having something less likely to kill a person, such as a taser, is much safer. Some people may argue that it doesnt do enough damage to defend somone, but taserd stop your muscles from moving, stopping whoever right in their tracks, alive. We should stop using guns for defense like we do, nothing that deadly should be so self conscious.
This comment should be under the comment instead of on the "arguments for" side. This side is for your individual comments, as to debate with you, guns should not be aloud in the hands of citizens because it is the gun that kills the people, the person.
If the person was responsible, you could take the gun out of the situation and someone would still die, this is not true. The gun is what is directly taking the human life. To say that quote is false is just commonly statisticly untrue, as stated in my argument Against; "For example, during a year when over 5,000 teens and children died from gun wounds in the USA, in Great Britain, where gun ownership is very restricted, 19 teens and children died from gun wounds."
Your side sounds more "against gun control". Responsible people, in my opinion, are the ones who have been trained and are armed with guns under government authorization. Which is quite rarely an average american citizen. You state, "but theres some people who use them for the wrong reason and that is what makes little familys cry because there loved one was gunned down by a horable person ;(((((((((((". That quote is much more for the "against side" and hurts your arugment
You go to school everyday with the requirement to not bare arms and do you honestly feel defenseless? 84% of americans havent taken one safety course on guns so its a threat to anyone, behind and infront of the gun. In alot of gun injuries, the user is harmed too. Guns should be left in trained haneds and with all the other types of defense methods, guns should not be the defult.
Student News Daily offers lots of policial stamensts about popular topic today. In a chart compairing Conservitive and Liberal views, there was the following quote; "The Second Amendment gives no individual the right to own a gun, but allows the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Guns kill people. Guns kill children."
For example, during a year when over 5,000 teens and children died from gun wounds in the USA, in Great Britain, where gun ownership is very restricted, 19 teens and children died from gun wounds. This is very blunt statistic proof that states that gun control thats rectricted to certian personal keep citizens safe and reduces the death by guns.
With society and technology proggressing at such a fast speed, the need for barbaric uses of protections such as guns is not nessicary. Guns can be unpredictable and almost 84% of americans have not been trained in gun safety. With the uses of modern day technoloy for individual protection, gun control should only be restriced to select forces of the goverment who are trained in using these weapons.
A huge part of american culture is film, and if you were to ask people if violence and special effects involiving guns and other firing weapons were nessicary to a good film, one out of two would say yes. This point gets even more drastic then a 50/50 when i comes to videos games, once you past rated "E" there it is almost impossible to find a game with no use of guns. Taking gun use as a "game" only provokes the wrong use of these weapons and teaches the brian that guns can be an "easy way or" or a "simple defense". Not only do adults play games, so do children. My 11 year old brother is a avid player of the new first person shooter Modern Warfare2. This game is fast paced and above all violent, take a look in the video below.
Modern Warefare may ahve the rating M but its very common for children to play these games. Some may argue that these "train to be future military member" but how does jamming down the "x" button until 2 in the moring make you a good soilder in training? Simple anwser, it doesn't. We cannot have guns in the same enviorment as play. Teaching people that firing a gun gives you points is not what they should know. Firing that gun kills another human being and will haunt you for the rest of your life.
Infact you may have heard about how many soilders who come back from the war suffer from many phycological issues that in many cases cannot be completely cured.
We should leave the guns to the people who need to use them. We as citizens need to be protected, not be armed. To keep the country both mentally and physically safe, we need to keep reality and virtual gaming seperate to keep are country togather. We need to restrict gun control.
