Gun Control Debate
What degree of gun control should we have ? 

PRO

Political Debates and Polls Forum

CON

Google

Youdebate.com Polls
WHAT DEGREE OF GUN CONTROL SHOULD WE HAVE ?

NO ONE BUT LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD HAVE GUNS
BACKGROUND CHECKS AND HAND GUNS AND ASSAULT RIFLES SHOULD BE COMPLETELY BANNED
BACKGROUND CHECKS AND MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO OWN ASSAULT GUNS WITHOUT A PERMIT, ILLEGAL FOR FELONS TO HAVE ANY GUNS, AND ILLEGAL FOR PEOPLE UNDER 21 TO HAVE HANGUNS
NO RESTICTIONS ON GUN OWNERSHIP, EXCEPT FOR FELONS


More Gun Control

Debates and Polls

 

 

For Debates and Polls

On All Topics

YouDebate Home

 

 

 

 

 

CON 1

The Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads:

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.

 

CON 2

The Founding Fathers wanted the population to be well armed so that the governed would be able to defend itself from an assault on its liberty, whether its from an invading government or our own.

 

CON 2.1

The Founding Fathers did not mean just sport guns, they meant guns that could defend our liberties.

 

PRO 3

In 1994 Governor Weld OF Massachusetts signed a law that banned handgun possession for people under 21 in Boston. a year after Weld signed the law, Boston, riddled with youth murders in the early 1990s, began a 2 1/2-year spell without a gun murder of a child under 17.

 

PRO 4

The Treasury and Justice departments this week released a study that found that 18- to 20-year-olds, 4 percent of the total population, account for 24 percent of gun murders in the United States. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican, supports raising the age for purchase but not for possession. Many Republicans and some Democrats still opposes any rise in the minimum age. In a letter to Vice President Al Gore, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Undersecretary James Johnson called for a ban on handgun and assault rifle possession and sales to people under 21.

 

PRO 5

Even the First Amendment has restrictions. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can say anything anywhere. Freedom of Religion doesn't mean you can sacrifice a virgin whenever you want. Using common sense can work with the Second Amendment too. 

 

CON 6

Freedom has a price. For free speech the price is political dissent like flag burning, for freedom of religion you have to tolerate beliefs that differ from the masses. the right to assemble means that the nazis and clan can assemble too. The founding fathers felt that to protect these freedoms the population had to be armed. the price to protect freedom is sometimes tragic, like when a crime is committed with a gun. Reasonable laws can help limit these occurrences. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of cars, and there's no movement to ban them. is the right to drive cars that much more important than protecting our freedom. 

 

CON 7

According to statistics there is 1 police officer for every 23,000 people in this country. Now how can that 1 policeman be there to protect me. The constitution does not guarantee us protection from murder or crime. It does provide us with a means to protect ourselves with the right to bear arms. We must stop trying to take hand guns away from law abiding citizens and concentrate on taking them away from the criminals. Hand guns are here to stay and no legislation can rid the world of them. Think about it, there is a law making it illegal to own and use many drugs. Has that law stopped the drug problem we have in this country.

 

CON 8

Even though there are statistics of gun violence, where are the charts of KNIFE violence or AUTOMOBILE violence? Not to mention deaths by screwdrivers, disease, baseball bats, crossbows,... and on. IF I really wanted to harm anyone, and a gun was not available at the time, the knife would be my next likely choice. IF a person really planned to kill anyone, that person would have found anything that would do the job. A disturbed person is more dangerous than a loaded gun, a gun is predictable, a disturbed person isn't. Submitted by Ken WIlson

 

PRO 8.1

I don't think liberals believe guns walk around and shoot people by themselves. What they do believe is that guns make killing physically easier, make it too convenient esp. when angered, allow a person to kill from a distance, and allows a person to kill many people at once.

 

CON 9

We already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books that are being ignored by criminals. In the Columbine High School tragedy, at least eighteen (18) existing anti-gun laws were broken. Does anyone really think the shooters cared they were breaking those anti-gun laws? By definition, does any criminal care that (s)he is breaking the law? Any law? What possible good can more anti-gun laws do other than to further penalize and harass honest American citizens who wish simply to enjoy their Constitutional rights?

 

PRO 9.1

Its obvious that someone who's willing to do a major crime like murder, isn't likely to worry about a gun control law. The object of gun control is to make it hard for someone that's likely to commit a crime from getting a gun and even harder to get a gun capable of killing dozens of people.

 

 

 

Click Here to add Your Thoughts to these Debates