Gun control

Nicolo Machiavelli once said that there were five reasons why it was absolutely essential for individuals to enjoy a right to keep and bear arms: to protect one's self, to keep rulers honest, to hunt, to defend the state against foreign invasion and to maintain one's republican character (lol). After all, how could any liberty be more vital than the second amendment? It makes every other civil liberty Americans enjoy possible. If not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government with their rights existing only at their government's pleasure [1]. I'll begin my rebuttal by responding to my opponent's claim that Hasan should not have been legally allowed to purchase the gun that was allegedly used to shoot people at the recent Fort Hood tragedy. First, the gun used could fire rounds that can penetrate SOME body armor, but those rounds are NOT available to the general public. Second, one avid gun user writes, "If you really want to be 'armor piercing' then use a rifle. Something like a .50 CAL will do just fine" [2]. In other words, Pro advocates that only guns like rifles be eligible for sale; however, rifles can be just as if not more dangerous than the one legally purchased by Hasan. That brings me to my next point: Guns don't kill people, but radical Islamic extremists do... or stressed out military doctors do. Regardless of your opinion on the accused individual, the gun isn't responsible for the deaths at Fort Hood - Hasan is. Our right to own gun should not be stifled by a sick individual with an agenda. As I mentioned, there are several reasons other than hunting that some people wish to own a gun. Because those motives aren't meant to intentionally harm others, we shouldn't expect that one's intention in owning gun is to commit a crime. Further, not only do guns not cause crime, but they help stop it. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck, handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes. The point is that in this world there are people who can be identified as "prey." As the old saying goes, "God didn't make all people equal — Mr. Colt did." A 1985 survey by the Department of Justice of inmates across the nation reported that 56 percent of the felons agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." Statistics also show that banning guns only encourages crime. According to a study by SUNY-University at Albany criminal justice professor Colin Loftin, Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976, and by 1991 its homicide rate had tripled. Meanwhile, the national homicide rate rose only 12 percent. [3]. Now, obviously my opponent realizes that law enforcement and the military need to have weapons. In that case, I think it's perfectly reasonable that citizens should be able to arm themselves with the same protection (as I said, to ensure that American freedom is protected). If you think that this is an unreasonable protection, we only have to look to American history to see why this concern is relevant. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act that made it illegal for citizens to speak out against the national government. During World War II, Japanese Americans - citizens and resident aliens alike - were stripped of their property and herded into concentration camps without cause or trial. Perhaps American freedom isn't as safe as we all thought [1]. So, that brings us to Pro's proposal for gun control. He submits that first and foremost, civilians should only have access to guns specifically made for hunting. This the part that I have a huge problem with. Not only do people reserve the right to have a gun for reasons other than hunting as I've said, but moreover gun shop owners, gun makers, gun collectors and the like all have the right to have their products bought and sold. This economy works on the basis of supply and demand. If people didn't supply these guns legally with current gun laws as they stand (the federal government requires gun store owners to perform background checks on all consumers wishing to purchase firearms already), then individuals would just buy these guns illegally on the black market. This would create a huge illegal market and expand the influence of corrupt organizations like the mafia and street gangs which would sell these firearms illegally. Further, it kind of eliminates the purpose of a gun (safety and protection) to be forced to keep your gun in storage. While it's important to keep a close eye on any accessible guns - especially if there are minors around - the reality is that you're going to want your weapon to be readily available to you in a time of need. So, as long as the weapon is locked or somehow otherwise protected then I think it should be okay. With that said, I'll send this debate back over to my opponent for now. Good luck! References: [1] http://media.www.thebatt.com... [2] http://www.drudge.com... [3] http://www.mcrgo.org...