Legalize all weapons for people who pass a background (knives, Swords, Machine Guns)
I think if a persons is in good standing with the law and in good mental health he or she should be able to carry any weapon of choice as long as it is not a weapon of mass destruction.
Weapons do not hurt or kill. People with unstable minds do and if all law abiding citizens had weapons they would save a lot of lives.
If all weapons were banned the unstable would still kill with a butter knife or a steak knife maybe a fork how about the the guy who killed his twin brother before going on a killing spree.
I am a police officer and I have seen guns made for under 2.00
I also seen very very dangerous bombs made for under 1.00 we need law abiding people to be prepared and armed
Protection is good
Side Score: 10
|
 |
Weapons Kill
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan studies have long located localized resistances within the cultural productions and practices associated with fandom, looking at http://www.bookwormlab.com/ Side: Protection is good
1
point
Ummm....have you ever been in a bar, possibly seen a fight or two break our. OK, now give the particapints guns, even you can see where this is going and thats just one of many examples of humans acting on basic urges/impulses! To be human is to be fallable! Side: Protection is good
Some weapons are not necessary for a civilian. A machine gun is not necessary for a civilian. Perhaps a pistol. Regardless, I would not feel safer seeing everyone walking around with a knife or a gun. The compulsion to use that weapon would be too great. If you disrespect someone who is carrying that pistol, prepare to have a bullet wound or a stabbing. Basically by giving all people the choice of carrying around weapons, you give them the power to hurt others. A civilized society cannot function when there is senseless violence. I can see that giving people the right to have a weapon is important for protection. But certain weapons are not necessary for safety. One doesn't need a bazooka to be safe, nor a machine gun, nor a chain gun, nor a sniper rifle. These are superfluous to safety. Presenting such weapons as protective is misleading. Additionally, civilians should not be allowed to carry potentially aggressive weaponry in public. Defensive weaponry would be a better choice, e.g. mace. Side: Weapons Kill
I can see that giving people the right to have a weapon is important for protection. But certain weapons are not necessary for safety. One doesn't need a bazooka to be safe, nor a machine gun, nor a chain gun, nor a sniper rifle. These are superfluous to safety. Presenting such weapons as protective is misleading. Additionally, civilians should not be allowed to carry potentially aggressive weaponry in public. Defensive weaponry would be a better choice, e.g. mace. How about those of us who enjoy weapons for recreational purposes? It's pretty mundane to only have a pistol or rifle. Side: Protection is good
1
point
In Switzerland it is common policy that the citizens are equipped with and trained in firearms, they too are peaceful. If you look at the big picture, violence in a society doesn't reliably correlate with gun control. I would argue that it's a combination of cultural values and corruption (like poverty, citizen's rights, etc.). Side: Protection is good
1
point
1
point
Are you getting your problem solved? If you are done with your dissertation but want to modify your dissertation then give your dissertation to the Online Dissertation. Many students used this source and they found it helpful. Side: Weapons Kill
|
