should veterans be allowed to wear guns?
Debate Rounds (3)
there isn't even much to say or to think about it. the facts are there. we cannot trust them with wearing guns since we don't know how their experience in war was, and they could potentially be mentaly ill, which increases the chances of having them either comitt a suicide or hurt and kill somebody. in fact, Since 2000, 96 ADF members have killed themselves. Another 13 veterans have committed suicide after leaving the ADF, and there are believed to many more unreported suicides, single motor vehicle accidents, or families that do not lodge claims. (according to http://www.abc.net.au...) it's scary enough to know that a couple veterans could be walking down our streets with guns, and that we cannot defend ourselves if something was to happen.
another fact is that veterens are retired, they are out of bussiness, so why would you still allow them to have guns? yes they should still be paid and honored for what they did for the country but leaving them with guns is just not right. it would be compared to allowing a taxi driver to keep his taxi after he retires. it doesn't benefit anyone, and again, it's a potential danger for the veteran himself and for his neighboors. and we already discussed why.
then some will say that it's for protecting themselves that veterans should be allowed to wear guns. well, that would mean the police does not do their job enough, and that doesn't sound right either. we got police officers everywhere in the USA for example, and even though the criminality rate would not change much, they are still important, and they do maintain peace and order in the city. so, why would someone even need a gun when he can perfectly go to a police station if ever he felt treatened by someone.
in a few words, i definately stand agains having veterans wear guns because it's not safe, it's not important and they already have police officers to play that role. and for this three reasons, everyone should vote against that resolution.
You suggest that guns lead to suicide. As it may be true that guns play apart in a lot of suicides, without guns doesn't necessary mean these gun related suicides wouldn't happen. If someone is so depressed to the point that they want to end there life, then they wouldn't let something like, the unavailability to get a gun to stop them. There are multiple different ways to kill your self.
You also say that the argument that guns are used for protection doesn't apply if the Police are doing there job. This is false, even a really good police force, doesn't know everything that is going on at any time. Imagine if someone breaks into your house and you call the police. It is good to know the police is on there way, but you need something to defend your self, right now.
You also say that not allowing them to have guns would protect us, but 60% of all gun crimes can lead to crooked gun dealers. So if they were truly mentally insane, then they world probably still find away to get gun. http://gunvictimsaction.org...
If all this wasn't enough, then keep in mind, its still a violation of there constitutional rights .
but, i do not think we would be violating any constitution if we take away a veteran's gun. as i said, you cannot retired and still have all of your job's "benefits". veterans can surely get other guns by whichever way they can. if we were to forbide them to wear guns after taking the first one away, then it would be considered as violating the constitution (of course if they do have a permit for the second gun).
still, they cannot be allown to have guns for safety reasons. we are talking about well trained people that know exatly what is a gun and how to use it, but we just don't know what they could be able to do once they retire; will they stay cool or will they just shot at anyone bothering them? we don't know. and even if they do get guns illegally or legally, the government would at least have done something to avoid it.
You also state that veterans shouldn't be allowed to have guns, it there only reasoning for wanting one is protection. Are solders may be well trained, but there isn't much you can do if some one with a gun is threatening you and your not in arms reach to do anything. Another thing is that you shouldn't have to have a reason in order to get a gun. It is are right to have guns, you don't need a reason to have something that is your right.
DYDY forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro overall dominated, except neither used sources and Con had better grammar.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.