Gun Control

To begin, I'd like to make the distinguishment between gun control and gun rights. I support the right to own firearms, but in a very limited manner. The primary reason to own a firearm in today's society is for self-defence. When defending oneself with a gun, shooting should always be a last resort, and killing the attacker should be avoided if possible. Knowing that larger weapons, such as assault rifles or automatic weapons, are more efficient at killing people, our goal should be to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons and using them to harm others, while allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons. So here is my preposition. Allow licensed adults to purchase basic firearms, such as handguns. If their goal is self-defence, then they don't need weapons with lots of ammunition or anything automatic. If basic weapons are readily available, then citizens will be able to defend themselves against attackers. On the other hand, larger and more potent weapons should be banned, and the government should do everything in their power to make sure that people don't get ahold of them. There is no need for a machine gun unless you are in the military. Of course, criminals will get ahold of illegal weapons regardless of the law, but citizens will have a defense against them this way. I also think that extra precautions should be taken to make sure that all people who own guns own them legally. All firearms must have a unique serial code registered with the federal government, and any person caught with a firearm without a registered serial code will have their rights to own firearms revoked, and will be fined or jailed. In addition, the government should regulate where firearms can be sold. All merchants who sell weapons should be registered with the government, and the number of shops should be limited. I also expect the issue of hunting weapons to come up. This is an OK thing, since hunting weapons are large and difficult to conceal. Few murders are done with hunting weapons. My opponent also mentioned the city of Chicago. I ask my To begin, I'd like to make the distinguishment between gun control and gun rights. I support the right to own firearms, but in a very limited manner. The primary reason to own a firearm in today's society is for self-defence. When defending oneself with a gun, shooting should always be a last resort, and killing the attacker should be avoided if possible. Knowing that larger weapons, such as assault rifles or automatic weapons, are more efficient at killing people, our goal should be to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons and using them to harm others, while allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons. So here is my preposition. Allow licensed adults to purchase basic firearms, such as handguns. If their goal is self-defence, then they don't need weapons with lots of ammunition or anything automatic. If basic weapons are readily available, then citizens will be able to defend themselves against attackers. On the other hand, larger and more potent weapons should be banned, and the government should do everything in their power to make sure that people don't get ahold of them. There is no need for a machine gun unless you are in the military. Of course, criminals will get ahold of illegal weapons regardless of the law, but citizens will have a defense against them this way. I also think that extra precautions should be taken to make sure that all people who own guns own them legally. All firearms must have a unique serial code registered with the federal government, and any person caught with a firearm without a registered serial code will have their rights to own firearms revoked, and will be fined or jailed. In addition, the government should regulate where firearms can be sold. All merchants who sell weapons should be registered with the government, and the number of shops should be limited. I also expect the issue of hunting weapons to come up. This is an OK thing, since hunting weapons are large and difficult to conceal. Few murders are done with hunting weapons. My opponent also mentioned the city of Chicago. In this case, we first need to determine whether or not the increased murders in Chicago are CAUSED by the increased gun control. There are many other factors that distinguish Chicago from other cities in the US, such as culture, the urban environment, the closeness of facilities to each other, etc. It is also a possibility that the strict gun laws were created BECAUSE the murder rate was high, not the other way around. I ask my opponent to demonstrate that this is a causation, not just a correlation or coincidence. This concludes my argument. Thank you.