Gun Control

It is my professional view that some gun control policies should exist in the United States and the world in general. There are plenty of facts and data that support my stance. Also, many of the reasons that it should exist are rather logical. My opponent has not provided a specific structure for this debate. I contacted him and asked if I may provide rebuttals in this round. He said yes. Therefore, I will provide my rebuttals and my arguments in this round.ArgumentsOf course, gun control is a quite controversial issue. However, I will stand with the Liberal views on guns. I do not quite understand why Conservatives always claim that Liberals want to take their guns away. That is not what they want. The Liberals simply want to put regulations in place to ensure that criminals do not obtain a gun or another dangerous weapon. This is common sense. This is logic. The second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. It is indeed true that basic weapons for self-defense are acceptable, but I do not believe the amendment to be valid in other respects. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [1] We no longer have a need for a militia due to a risilient and couragous United States Military. Also, I will point out the amendment's original intention. At the time of the Constitution's framing, there were still many issues in the country. An issue was the lack of a strong military force. Due to this lack, the founders decided citizens need to be able of defending themselves. I agree with this view, but you cannot deny that an AK-47 in a typical American household is excessive. If you want a gun for self-defense, buy a pistol. Or, even better, obtain a dog. Dogs are better defense that guns. There are many ways the amendment can be interpreted, but I will point out that it has been misinterpreted for quite some time. I will rewrite the amendment in the way many citizens interpret it:"A well regulated mob, being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear any arms at all, shall never be denied." Deny what I just wrote. Please, I welcome the debate. I don't, however, want to hear anything based on misinterpretations. I want facts, which many people opposing gun control surely lack. "It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens." [2] Not all Americans are law-abiding. Due to the lack of sophisticated gun control, the crime rate in the United States has increased by a considerable amount. May I ask, why do Conservatives always bring up that gun control is taking away guns from law-abiding citizens but not criminals? This is completely unfounded and illogical. When a background check occurs on a law-abiding citizen, there will be no issues and he or she will obtain the weapon. A law-breaker will have a record and these will be shown in the background checks, thus ensuring he does not obtain a weapon. "The rate of U.S. violent crime went up last year for the first time in nearly two decades due to a jump in assaults..." [3] The second amendment must be enforced, but it must not be misinterpreted. There are multiple methods of regulating guns. I would like to focus on background checks, limited ammunition, and the regulation of gun production. Background checks should be expanded so that we can ensure that people with a history of crime and/or mental illness do not receive a gun. Alongside background checks, there should be limited ammunition. What if the background checks were conducted incorrectly? What if this person did in fact have a history of crime and planned to use his new rifle to kill innocent children at a school? Each magazine should include a limited amount of ammunition, depending on the exact type of weapon and the damage level of the ammunition. Also, the level of gun production should be reduced.Let me ask: While this crime is occuring, are you simply going to do nothing? If you are not going to enact gun control, what are you going to do? Are you going to arm children? Are you going to place security everwhere? This shall not work. I would like for you to view the bellow link:http://www.nationmaster.com...Germany is a nation with grandiose gun control measures. The United States is not. The crime rate, of course, is much, much lower in Germany, the nation I happen to come from. Do not ignore that. This is critical. Rebuttals"The biggest thing is that gun control is not effective and if enforced at a larger level, it will continue to be ineffective. It has been proven that criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns no matter what. Here is a scenario proving this: The five US cities with the strictest gun control laws are New York, Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, and Washington D.C. These are also the five cities in the US with the most murders by shooting. All that gun control does here is take guns away from law abiding citizens. If people in these cities had guns to defend themselves, there would not be as many murders."I essentially refuted this already. Gun control does not prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining a gun. Tell me, what does "background checks" mean? It means that individuals will look through your record. If you have a history of crime and/or mental illness, you chance of getting a gun is slim. If you are law-abiding, there will be no issues. "Also, gun control would not be good for businesses or the economy." Where is the proof of this? "For example, if background checks were put in place, it would take longer for people to purchase firearms. This would slow down sales for the business owner and they might have trouble paying bills. In addition, if gun control was put in place, guns would be sold on the black market." My opponent has not proven that gun control has a direct impact on the economy. He will need to do so for this point to be valid. Are you simply going to allow criminals to get a gun that easily, completely without background checks? I find this to be representative of stupidity. "Scenario: magazine size is limited, so assault rifles are now being sold on the black market. And who buys off the black market? Criminals do. I believe that the less items that are sold on the black market, the better." Again, this point may likely be true, but my opponent must prove so. The gun control system, of course, is flawed. However, it can change. There needs to be comprehensive gun control put into place. There must be a progressive reform of the gun industry. For me to be convinced otherwise, my opponent would need to prove that gun control has a direct negative influence on the economy, that gun control causes higher crime rates, and that gun control is simply ineffective. I am not convinced yet. 1. http://www.archives.gov...;2. http://www.lectlaw.com...;3. http://edition.cnn.com...;