Gun Control

COUNTER-REBUTTALS (Number corresponds to Op's Rebuts in num order) 1) People do have the right to protect themselves, I will concede this point. That right ends where another person's rights begin, however. Constitutional rights have limits on them; the classic example being that I cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one, because it may cause a panic and get people hurt. The same is true in regards to the right to bear arms. If certain firearms serve no purpose other than to cause harm, or provide unnecessary firepower, then it is a sound and logical choice to ban them since they have the potential to cause great malice without serving a practical and benign need to the everyday citizen. Your rights end here, because it is a danger to the public health to have such weapons at large in society. You also alluded to home defense, and I will address this. The presence of a weapon in the home, instead of increasing home safety, actually leads to a higher chance of someone in your home being the victim of gun violence; whether it be from domestic violence, a curious yet unfortunate child, or the escalation of force a criminal might use if you pull a gun on him. Again, this is why weapons handling and the bearing of arms is best left to the professionals in law enforcement agencies and the military. [1] 2) I do not doubt the US constitution on this issue, I only doubt the interpretation that certain elements of society make of the second amendment. If we were to interpret the second amendment in the most literal sense, we as citizens would be allowed to own and operate any piece of military equipment we could afford. Recoilless rifles, grenades, heavy machine-guns, mortars, etc. The list of destructive weapons that would be allowed to enter society goes on, but it's a moot point because fortunately we're smart enough as a society to not take the wording in the constitution literally. We recognize that there are some legitimate circumstances where private citizens have the right to own firearms. Now in regards to the second part of your statement, I would like to reiterate that my position in this debate is that I want more gun control, not that I want to ban firearms outright. So we must establish that gun control does not equal gun prohibition, and that I am not arguing for gun prohibition. The three categories I listed are legitimate purposes for firearms ownership, and I will explain why. -Personal Defense: Firstly I'd like to point out that not everyone should be entitled to own a handgun for self-defense. In most situations ownership of a handgun will actually bring more harm than good to your household, however, there are certain situations where handgun ownership for the purpose of self-defense is practical and has sound reasoning. One example that comes to mind is a shop owner, who must personally carry over $10,000 in cash from his safe to the bank once a month. This man should be allowed to carry a handgun while he performs this task, because he is putting himself at a great risk when he carries so much money on his person. [1] -Hunting: Hunters often play a vital part in keeping the population of certain species of animals at an acceptable level. Thus hunters should be able to continue playing their part in conservationism. Furthermore, hunting firearms are designed for hunting animals and not killing people, therefore the rate of fire on these weapons are slower than military grade weapons and the bulky size of many of these rifles make them impractical for close quarters fighting. [4] -Showmanship Shooting and Other Sports: The weapons used in showmanship shooting are very similar to hunting firearms, and to the people that participate in these sports, this is their livelihood. Since these weapons pose little danger to the public health, and the trade is a livelihood to many showmanship shooters, this is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. 4) Even those with a rudimentary knowledge of firearms know that there is a huge difference between an assault rifle and a handgun. The 9mm rounds used in handguns are not capable of piercing the protective body armor that police officers wear, and handguns are not capable of sustaining the same rate of fire as an assault rifle, nor do they have as many rounds per magazine. Assault rifles are weapons designed specifically for combat, the ammunition is designed specifically to destroy vital organs and end life. Handguns are designed as personal defense weapons, and can be concealed on an everyday person for purposes of self-protection in cases where it is warranted. To say that a handgun has the same potential of causing human death as an assault rifle is absurd. Furthermore, I will reiterate once again that the centerpiece of my argument is that we need more gun control and not gun prohibition. 5) We can easily do this, because it follows simple market principal. If you lower the supply and accessibility of illegal firearms, then the demand for them goes up and they eventually become unaffordable to criminals. As I stated in my opening arguments, it is painfully easy to obtain illegal firearms. Criminals can simply go to gun shows and exploit a law, which allows gun shows to sell weapons without licenses or background checks. Barring that they can purchase weapons directly from people with federal firearm licenses illegally. By simply changing the law and regulating gun shows and strengthening the ATF so they can inspect federal firearm license holders more efficiently, we can drastically reduce the supply of illegal firearms. [2][3] REBUTTALS 1)Rights As I stated in the counter-rebuttals, your rights end where another person's begins. The only reason gun control legislation can pass is because the courts and the constitution recognize this crucial fact. If we give you the ability to easily obtain an assault rifle to defend your home with, we're also providing that same easy access to the people that are willing to turn around and sell these guns to criminals for a profit. Not controlling the proliferation of dangerous weapons into public is a danger to the public, because these weapons will be used by criminals to commit crimes. If these dangerous weapons provided some benign use to the public, then it would be a risk worth taking, but they are not and so it is only logical to prohibit their sale. 2)Responsibility It is good to see that my opponent agrees that gun control is a necessity to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminal element of our society. Unfortunately he seems to consider knives and rocks to be as deadly a weapon as firearms. Crime will never cease, there will always be crime. It is crime that involves gun violence that is the main issue here, for that is what we seek to curtail by enacting further gun control legislation. 3)Freedom My opponent suggests that regulating firearms will lead us down the path to communism. This is absurd. The constitution does not give you the right to endanger the lives of others, and that's what we'd be doing if we had no gun control. Imagine a nation where the Bloods and the Crips do drive-by shootings with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on their Cadillacs. This is the America without gun control, and the America my opponent seems to want. Oh wait, it's okay because we can just give even bigger guns to private citizens and let them shoot it out. Then we'll have to give the police even bigger weapons I suppose, perhaps we'll just settle for replacing their police cruisers with tanks. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea. [1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... [2] http://gunvictimsaction.org... [3]http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.huntinginvirginia.net...