Gun Control

=====REBUTTALS===== "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." This doesn't make sense. So your saying you agree that people need self defence and thus guns are justified, but then go on to contradict yourself by saying that we shouldn't allow them because they have the potential to cause harm. So I could say that they have the potential to cause good, by using them for self defence. We won't always be able to count on the police force in time, so why ban guns from citizens, when that may be their only lifeline? "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." Gun laws require that in order to obtain a fire arm in your home, you must have a safe to safely store them in.http://en.wikipedia.org...This deters children from entering, criminals from entering, etc. The only person who should know the combination should be the owner of the gun. So this argument cannot be looked to as a child cannot harm themselves in this scenario. "Again, this is why weapons handling and the bearing of arms is best left to the professionals in law enforcement agencies and the military."In order to own a gun, an individual must complete basic gun courses in order to purchase one.http://corneredcat.com...You must show proof of completing the courses neccesary to own a gun as well, among having several other things. Gun laws are strict, and not so easy that any one and their kids can purchase one without the neccesary requirements being completed. People who own gun have a basic understanding and knowledge of how to operate them. Thus we would be giving the government too much power if they are the only ones who own guns. The reason we have gun laws in the first place is to prevent government intrusion. Just like in the revolutionary war, owning and operating guns will prevent government from transforming into a dictatorship." 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." Okay so I get that in this point you are trying to say that the constition can be taken literally. This point is irrelevant however. We all have a basic understanding of what the constitution is saying when we can bear arms. Manipulating the meaning of the constitution is semantics. Most citizens operate with basic weapons that can be used for protection; Handguns, small semi-automatic weapons, etc. If you want to get literal, I could easily say that the government owes me a pair of bear arms, seeing as we have the "right to bear arms".http://www.google.com...Point is, let's not get to literal with this. We understand the constitution and it's moral values on society."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"I am sorry, but I feel like this is a little unfair. I would not have accepted this debate if I would have known you would be making these types of arguments. The thing I find unfair about this, is that you don't give the voters a choice in whom they vote for. You could easily play both side of the fence arguing this way, by saying "Well all arugments fail. I never said I dis-agreed with this, just that there should be exceptions". So you then put you opponent in a trap. I will argue on further, however, I would like the audience to please ignore these types of arguments. This is all with the utmost respect, mr.Brooks.-PERSONAL DEFENCESo you do claim that a person has a right to self defence, and you give an example of why they should use guns for self defence. But you start out saying that not every one has this right. I would like to why, and your reasoning behind other people going about their daily lives, and why they are not entitled to the same obligations as the shopkeeper.-HUNTING Agreed on all points. Argument says nothing about why we should add more gun control policies :)-SHOWMANSHIP Here you contradict your whole argument. You say that guns used for showmanship are absolutely no harm, thus they can be kept. What makes them less harmful than a normal fire arm? The can go off, or cause harm just like any other firearm. If these kind of guns can be kept, then all guns should be kept. "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."Hand guns have the same ability to stop a persons life as an assualt rife does. When used the right way, and fired at the right part of the human body, both potentially do the same thing. So again, if a person can have this type of firearm, then why not other legal firearms sold by gun shows and gun dealers. "If you lower the supply and accessibility of illegal firearms, then the demand for them goes up and they eventually become unaffordable to criminals."Again, as I have said before, You are thinking nationally. We must think internationally here. Just like criminals can still obtain drugs, they can obtain guns through arms dealers throughout different countries. Or even create them, as drugs are created. Continuing use of guns is evident through continuing use of drugs. Banning or even regulating gun control will prove worthless. =====MY CASE==== 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." This argument works both ways. By not having and owning guns for self defence purpose we are susceptible we are allowing that principle to work against us. We can lose our rights by not having our own defence mechanisms. RESPONSIBILITY "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."Even you said early on in your rebuttals: your rights end where another person's begins. This means we have a certain responsibility to go along with the use of guns. Which you must agree with since you agree to owning guns for self defence.FREEDOM "Imagine a nation where the Bloods and the Crips do drive-by shootings with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on their Cadillacs"This is exactly why gun control is a horrible concept. It limits citizen protection from the exact scenario you are showing. "Oh wait, it's okay because we can just give even bigger guns to private citizens and let them shoot it out."We have had the right to bear arms for about 200 years. My questions, how often do you see this happening with everyday life? Gun control is harmful because it is taking away our freedom before even allowing responsibility to take effect.====CONCLUSION==== I have accurately refuted all of my opponents points, and he agrees with me that gun control is detrimental. Please vote CON.Thanks.