I am only 14. Please don't judge my grammar, and I am going off of my own research. I don't think guns should be banned to the general public. Criminals don't follow laws. That's what makes them criminals! So if the legislature passes laws saying that citizens (who pass background checks, of course), can't have firearms to defend themselves (liek if an intruder came into their home), then more people would get injured or even die because of it. There will be more complicated court trials (and new laws will have to be passed) like the self-defense argument (such as the Treyvon Martin case). I will be fine if more strict background checks are required, but the people have a right (ahem, The Constitution) to be able to practice self-defense. Criminals won't follow the laws of gun-banning. So we need to be ready.
@HollyMaxSpencer
Or we can think about it this way. If the shooters had not been allowed access to guns so easily, the Sandy Hook incident might never have happened. The suggestion you are making now is for us to do nothing and maintain the status quo. My suggestion would not be to eliminate guns completely from the start, but rather sponsor for a gradual decline.
@1Alyssa
At the Sandy Hook incident, if just one teacher had had a gun in the classroom, then some of those kids might have lived to see their next birthday. If we can completely eliminate all firearms from the public, that's great. Butte chances that we can do that are extremely slim. The most we can do now is allow people to defend themselves so criminals will injure less people.
@Brice1967, I know nuclear weapons is a bit of a stretch, but the same logic applies.
Just because criminals might find a way to go around the law doesn't mean we should simply disregard the possibility of stoping them, especially considering the fact that most criminals are nonprofessionals. In China there was an incident where a man used a knife in attempt to kill innocent people. Officials say good thing he didn't have a gun or else more lives would've been lost. America has had enough gun violence that it doesn't need to add more to its growing list.
Consider this, what is the possibility that you will ever need a gun in your life, wherever you are?
Someone made a comment along the lines of "nuclear weapons should be readily available....." . Nobody is saying nuclear weapons should be readily available and anyone who makes that assumption clearly doesn't understand the question. A gun and a nuclear device aren't even comparable.
By your logic, nuclear weapons should be readily accessible to the public because criminals don't follow the law, that's what makes them criminals.
Just because criminals go against the law, doesn't mean we should make it easy for them to do so. Violence only induce more violence. We are hoping to move away from that. The various shooting incidents in the United STates can further prove my point.
I do think that they should make better background checks, and make a better effort to see if you have stable mental health, but other than that, people should have access to firearms to defend themselves with.
I think so. It seems that you are arguing for less (or no?) restrictions on who can own guns as well as less restrictions on what types of guns they can own. It that correct? I think the confusion comes when you say things like, " I don't think guns should be banned to the general public." This makes it sound like you are arguing against a complete ban, without considering restrictions. (As a side note, a ban is an extreme form of a restriction, but not all restrictions are bans, but that is semantics.)
Basically the gun restriction is kind of a ban (like after the Sandy Hook and the Colorado theater shootings, the government wanted to start making guns bein very restricted and wanted almost no one to have them), and my position is that there should be more. Background checks and clarifications about the recipient's mental stability, but people should be allowed to have a firearm to defend themselves with. Does this answer your question?
You might want to clarify your position. In your title you mention a restriction, but then you talk of a ban. Are you talking about an outright ban (no guns allowed), or are you talking about restrictions on who can own guns and what type of guns can be owned by private citizens.
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.
Or we can think about it this way. If the shooters had not been allowed access to guns so easily, the Sandy Hook incident might never have happened. The suggestion you are making now is for us to do nothing and maintain the status quo. My suggestion would not be to eliminate guns completely from the start, but rather sponsor for a gradual decline.
At the Sandy Hook incident, if just one teacher had had a gun in the classroom, then some of those kids might have lived to see their next birthday. If we can completely eliminate all firearms from the public, that's great. Butte chances that we can do that are extremely slim. The most we can do now is allow people to defend themselves so criminals will injure less people.
Just because criminals might find a way to go around the law doesn't mean we should simply disregard the possibility of stoping them, especially considering the fact that most criminals are nonprofessionals. In China there was an incident where a man used a knife in attempt to kill innocent people. Officials say good thing he didn't have a gun or else more lives would've been lost. America has had enough gun violence that it doesn't need to add more to its growing list.
Consider this, what is the possibility that you will ever need a gun in your life, wherever you are?
Just because criminals go against the law, doesn't mean we should make it easy for them to do so. Violence only induce more violence. We are hoping to move away from that. The various shooting incidents in the United STates can further prove my point.