Gun control laws
Hello. In our society, many people wish to implement stricter gun control laws in our society. I am against the proposals, and am taking the con side of this argument.
The link we will be using is here.http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...
This is a very confusing legal document, so we will be quoting from here. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...
Yes, I know that there are quite a few gun control debates, but I think that this is a topic worthy of its controversy.
First round is for acceptance, second round is for stating your initial arguments, then we can post our rebuttals. Thank you for the debate, and make sure it's serious. I do not want 50 word posts stating one argument. Good luck!
I am in favour of gun control laws and welcome an enjoyable debate.
In America, many people in the government are attempting to pass laws pertaining to the usage of guns. They include rules that restrict the everyday usage of guns, effectively limiting the safety and protection that they can give us. Some of these gun control laws should not be implemented in the U.S because it would cause many unnecessary regulations and negative effects.
On the list to be banned are 157 specifically named pistols, rifles and shotguns. Yes, there are many, many more guns out there than this. However, the proposed legislation ( http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...) also states the following regulations:
The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of: All semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
This may sound reasonable at first, until you consider the fact that nearly all semiautomatic rifles bear a detachable magazine; for those who do not know, rifles are guns with a large barrel and stock that are loaded by putting bullets into a rectangular “storage compartment”, or magazine. It is very reasonable to let citizens carry at least some form of semi-automatic firearm, for defense.
These are not the only “widespread” bans either. These people also propose to ban semi-automatic pistols with a detachable magazine, ammunition feeding devices capable of using more than ten rounds at once, and semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can shoot more than 10 rounds at once.
When most people think of a “semi-automatic” rifle, they think of a machine gun. They think that these guns can fire many shots every second, with automatic fire and huge bullet capacities. In reality, however, these guns only fire one bullet per trigger press. It then loads a new bullet into the chamber, ready to be fired. If you consider this, banning these rifles goes against their written intentions.
Their reasoning for the bans is stated at the top of the paper:
Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload.
If this is true, they should get rid of all rifles and automatic weapons. However, it clearly states that “The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.” By doing this, they give criminals another two thousand guns to use, making the ban completely useless.
The article also gives us a few reasons why it’s necessary, but these reasons can be negated from their argument easily. They tell us that a previous assault rifle ban in 1994, which expired in 2004, was very clearly effective. They supply us with the information that over 350 have been killed since it expired. 350 people were killed by rifle in the year 2010. However, that number pales in comparison to murders by pistol, a weapon that is not automatic, with 6,000 murders (http://www.theblaze.com...).
Many people would argue that these confinements will stop people from having the guns to kill with. Although they may limit the use to most citizens, real murderers can and will find other ways of getting the outlawed weapons. As of now, thorough background checks are required to buy a gun. With this in place, how does any criminal get their hands on a gun? They cannot get them through normal means, so they must use illegal trades and the like to get them.
Strict laws have never stopped people from breaking the rules. It is not like there were no mass murders in the time period where the guns were illegal. for example, in 1997, a time where the assault rifles were banned, this happened:
After he was expelled for having a gun in his locker, Kipland P. Kinkel, 15, a freshman at Thurston High, went on a shooting spree, killing his parents at home and two students at school. Five classmates wrestled Kipland to the ground before he was arrested.
If somebody sets his heart on doing something, there is no way to stop him, for better or worse.
For many years now, people have been trying to lay down a ban on “assault weapons,” guns that can fire large amounts of bullets at a time. There are many, many reasons that this should not be implemented into our society, including the ones listed above. It is useless in a lot of ways, allowing people to access thousands of “sporting” rifles which are “strictly for competition.” The United States would be better off without the law.
As you can probably guess by the username and vibrant profile picture - I am a Briton. In the United Kingdom, most guns are banned and to own a hunting rifle one requires a gun licence which is extremely difficult to earn and requires extensive background checks. In the United States, however, the story is very different. In the majority of US states, you do not require a permit or extensive background checks to purchase a firearm. Unless you are in a REALLY blue state (like Connecticut, Massachussets, etc) you can, quite literally, stroll into a shop and purchase a gun. All you need to do is provide ID. That's it. You can buy a gun in the same way as you could by a bottle of wine. This is ridiculous.
The figures never lie. In a country such as the UK where guns are not permitted, gun crime is lower. In the US (I belive these figures are for last year (Source: FBI)), there were 13,000 gun murders. Thirteen thousand people killed by guns. In the United Kingdom: 35 gun murders. That is an astonishing difference. But, obviously, there is a difference in population. So if we times the UK stat by 5.3 to scale it up to the US population, we get 185 gun murders. The difference is still massive, there is no disputing that.
However, many who support reckless gun ownership in the US say that, in Britain, other forms of violent crime (particularly stabbings) are even higher than other forms of violent crime in the US. Only...this isn't true. (Stats for UK crime: GOV.UK)
When populations are scaled up:
US: 1,800 lethal stabbings
UK: 1,060 lethal stabbings
Crime rate in Britain is much lower than in the US. And gun crime is IMMENSLEY lower.
Sandy Hook is a tragic case of when your silly little constitution actually fails the people whose rights it aims to 'protect'. So what - some stupid sheet of paper says you can own a gun. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Oikos, Santa Monica. This has got to stop! When your right to own a gun infringes on others' right to life and to LIVE, then it's gone too far.
I completely agree with you, this bill is stupid and will do nothing for America. The bill needs to be tougher, it needs to include not just those guns BUT ALL GUNS. For the sake of Americans across your country, for the sake of your own children: ban guns.
There are other ways to defend yourself, but desperately clinging onto this mediaeval obsession you have with owning lethal weapons is inappropriate for this day and age.
US Shootings must stop. Full stop.
glaciersnake forfeited this round.
I am disappointed that my opponent forfeited the previous round - I hope this reflects how much he feels about his arguments. May the best debator win, may the voting begin.