The U.S. government should impose stricter gun control laws in order to reduce violent crime

Ughhhh..... no....... Thank you for extending the debate but I most strongly oppose you and I will show you why. I'm going to cite things you have said and offer my thoughts on it. "The belief that imposing stricter gun laws will reduce violent crime is an erroneous belief." >>"A study by the American Journal of Public Health found that "the United States has higher rates of firearm ownership than do other developed nations, and higher rates of homicide." - Wiki "If a person is going to commit a violent crime with a gun, how does it make sense to think that stricter gun laws will prevent them from doing so?" >>Person with a legal handgun vs. person with a legal full automatic walks into a school and starts shooting people. Who is going to commit more crime....? "Does anyone really believe that a hypothetical murderer becomes compelled to murder someone in cold blood, but then stops him or her self because it may be illegal to have a gun at the time?" >>You're approaching this the wrong way. If the gun is illegal it is harder to come by, especially for deranged children or college students. Under our current laws I can walk into a store in most any state and buy a full automatic weapon. WTF do you use a full auto for? "This was the first news headline I read when I logged on to Yahoo this evening (2/14/08): "DEKALB, Ill. - A man dressed in black opened fire with a shotgun and two handguns from the stage of a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday, killing five students and injuring 16 others before committing suicide, authorities said." Illinois is a state which already has strict gun laws, but that obviously didn't protect these people from getting gunned down. After this incident and the one at Virginia Tech," >>You cite me two examples of why gun control doesn't work. Your fallacy assumes that because one thing happens then it must have a link to another. This would be like saying, "The rooster crows when the sun rises, thus the sun rises because the rooster crows" Its simply not true. Another example, because sometimes people die when they are wearing seat belts therefor seat belts don't work. You assume that these two incidents are the rule but it isn't true, they are the exception to the rule. Also, concerning Virginia Tech. What would have been done if there were no gun control laws? Are you suggesting college students should carry fire arms? -.- "I reaffirm my position that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that gun laws should be relaxed so law-abiding citizens are able to protect themselves in situations such as these." >>The constitution was created in 1971! Times change, when the Bill of rights was made the second amendment meant that you have the right to keep a musket for defense. It was created in a time when the police force was almost non-existent, in a time when people were expanding west past the confines of the law. Our for-fathers could have never imagined the world as it is today especially fully automatic rifles. Amendments need to be updated and changed as time goes on, look specifically to the 3rd amendment; it means nothing in contemporary society. Then you go on and tell me this needs to be so that law-abiding citizens are able to protect themselves. With a fully automatic weapon I ask you!? From what!? The USFG SWAT!? Who reading this debate has heard of deranged murders traveling in groups so large that fully automatic weapons are needed to contain them? So let me give you a situation. Someone pulls a pistol in a school cafeteria and starts blasting away. Another guy sees this and pulls his own pistol. A third guy looks around and notices the two guys blasting away at each other and decides to help the guy he likes the most. Guy four notices his friend being shot at and pulls his pistol. Guys five six and seven decide to fight for justice, sadly they don't know who started the fight so they are shooting everyone with a pistol. Yeah not very likely huh? After all how many people are going to have weapons on them in a public area like a school? Oh wait.... you are advocating that people have weapons for self defense. This is what happens when people panic, they shoot whoever is possibly threatening their life. Now hand them fully automatic guns. What now...... Our forefathers added the second amendment to mean people should have the right to possess muskets, in a time when the law could not be trusted to properly defend any individual. Nobody needs fully automatic weapons or even weapons at all to protect themselves in the status quo. "If the government were to take our guns away, or continue to impose stricter gun laws, it will only impede our ability to protect ourselves." >>Let me approach a different thought for a second. I'll deter my thoughts from fully automatic weapons briefly. Say someone pulls a gun on you. How exactly do you propose to defend yourself? The obvious solution right? Reach for the pistol in your pocket.... oh wait, you just got shot. Most people don't carry guns in public as it is, its one of those things society tends to frown upon. How does having guns protect us at all, at least if guns were illegal the criminals would have a difficult time of getting their hands on them. Accidents would happen less often, school shooting would happen less often. "The closer the U.S. comes to having full gun control, the closer we approach a time in which the only people with guns are cops and criminals." >>Sure, but we also approach a time when there are far fewer criminals with guns. This is the advantage. Because the united states have a higher rate of fire arms we have a higher rate of murders. Owning a gun is not likely to prevent you from being murdered by a gun. However banning guns prevents criminals from getting their hands on them without some serious effort. Also reducing the number of guns makes the ones that exist easier to keep track of. "Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it's not working for drugs, and it won't work for guns." >>What... no link at all. Alcohol and drugs are both a source of recreation and fun for those who use them. This is why prohibition failed, this is why the war on drugs is failing. Guns help kill people.... nobody wants to be killed. Banning guns works, has worked in the past, and is working right now in many other countries, like those of the European Union. The United States has the highest murder rate. I rest my case.