Gun control

I'd also like to apologize for sources, this is my first debate so I did not know. I will not make the mistake again Laws Do Not Apply To Criminals We"ve all heard this one many times, but a point of contention that just won"t go away must be quite convincing to some. Gun laws are all founded on the principle of making a nation safer by limiting its civilian population"s access to guns, but laws against murder and violence do not apply to those who have given up on life and intend to die while killing as many people as they can. Laws against theft do not apply to a person who intends to steal something. The sole thing the criminally-minded care about is not getting caught. Some are reformed in prison, but in large part, those who want to break a law are not going to feel remorse when they are caught. Give them a chance and they will do it again. From this perspective, it is difficult to fathom the logic of enacting newer, stricter gun laws on an already lawful society. Most of us obey such laws. Sale of guns is forbidden within the city limits of Chicago, an ordinance that went into effect in 2010. For the year 2013, the city"s murder count is 374. There were 432 in 2010 and 500 in 2012. The FBI has named Chicago the nation"s murder capital. Thus, the city ordinance did nothing to reduce its murder rate. None of this is to imply that in areas of well-armed civilians, the violent crime rate must go down. That is not true. The highest crime rates in 2012 were in the South, where gun ownership is at its highest. But this fact as well corroborates that any imposition of gun control does not address the issue of gun-related crime. Maybe In A Perfect World . . . Let us disentangle ourselves from the trees and take a look at the forest. Because there is no national gun registry, the exact number of guns in civilian hands in the US cannot be determined, but a conservative estimate places it"as of 2010, when the gun-buying craze was just reaching its peak"at 270 million weapons. This was about 89 guns per 100 people, the most heavily armed civilian population in the world. Yemen was second with 55 per 100, and Switzerland third. As of 2013, Serbia is second. Another estimate, conducted by Congressional Research in 2012, places the total number of weapons in US civilian hands at 310 million as of 2009. By today, that means almost 1 gun for every single citizen, including infants. What would gun control even mean at this point? Assume this federal law: from 2014 on, no more assault rifles. Those who already own one may keep theirs, but such weapons will disappear from gun stores and pawn shops. Have we controlled much of anything? There are still at least 3 million assault rifles out there. In a perfect world, gun control would mean going house to house throughout the nation and taking away every single firearm, including muzzle loaders. That would be impossible. Regardless of its constitutionality, gun owners would either fight back until there were a nationwide civil war or simply hide their weapons and claim they have none. Since most of those in the US are unregistered, no one knows who has what. Owners could always claim they destroyed those that are registered. Thus, to debate gun control is a futile exercise. They cannot be controlled"not anymore. The continuation of buying and selling them cannot make the situation any worse because criminals will never again have to go far to find one. "By definition, the con is defending the right of the mentally ill to have guns. The mentally ill cannot be trusted with guns because they are incapable of handling them and may have outbursts. Adam Lanza, the man who perpetrated the Sandy Hook massacre was mentally ill. In fact, the NYTimes reports that Lanza's mental illness went largely untreated before the shooting. There is no reason to support giving guns to the mentally ill. " Problem: in many states ( Arizona, Georgia,Idaho,ect. .. ) the mentally ill are not aloud to have any ownership of a gun until 5 years after discharge and frequent visits from the police. so it not a mater of gun control for the mentally ill but it is for the state to decide. "Guns that explode and kill the carrier (without warning or prior knowledge of the fact while buying the firearm) By definition, the con is defending the sale of these as well. If hypothetically these existed, the con would have to defend why we should sell them. The reason to regulate (ban) the sale of these is obvious: they are literally murdering and deceiving the user. " Problem: before owning gun you must sign a form that recommends gun training, if a weapon is well handled ten the weapon will not "explode" unless putting your bullets in the cartridge in an incorrect way. "How can you trust children/babies with guns. One could accidentally fire one and kill somebody. " Problem: guns are only aloud to be bought by an 18 year old and up then it becomes the problem of the person who let the gun come into the hands of a child thus it is not the gun dealers fault or even the fact the we aloud to have guns. it is simply the actions of the owner of the gun that should be judged in this situation Source information. . http://www.ncsl.org... . http://listverse.com...