Gun control

Thank you for responding, and I apologize for taking so long on my response. 1. Think about this. Every single person is a potential criminal. I don't understand how people think it's okay to sell guns to potential criminals under the potentially false pretense of it being for self defense. In regards to the homicide rate tripling in DC, they did not say anything about how fast the crime rate in DC changes anyway, but I would be inclined to think that it would be higher anyway. But either way, your "fact-based" article had some bad facts in it. It cited Colin Loftin as finding that the gun laws didn't work. Well, here is what Dr. Loftin really found, "In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms (a reduction of 3.3 per month, or 25 percent) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month, or 23 percent). No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other methods, as would be expected if equally lethal means were substituted for handguns.[1]" I'm not quite sure how your article got the facts that it did, but one thing is clear: that source is not to be trusted. 2. Please don't condone illegal behavior. We have had four presidents assassinated. The most recent, as you pointed out, was John F. Kennedy, who was killed 47 years ago today. His assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, would have been brought to justice until he was shot by Jack Ruby, who was, in turn, given the death penalty, which was overturned, and then he died himself. It really seems like a great reason for guns to be illegal, my friend. You're not helping your cause. It is illegal to shoot the president. John Wilkes Booth was killed by union soldiers. Charles Guiteau was hanged. Leon Czolgosz sat in the electric chair. You don't assassinate the president, or anyone else. In regards to the second amendment, in the 18th century, the generally accepted definition for "bear arms" was to have a militia. Even if you didn't get that, they tried to make it even more clear by saying "A well regulated militia..." And by people, it means collectively. It's not talking about how you should be able to have guns so you can shoot the president. That's loony. You referenced the Japanese concentration camps. While that was horrible, I could not think of a worse thing to do than to shoot your captors. Because you already have no rights, you're basically screwed once you break the law. 2 (pt. 2). As I said, you don't shoot government officials. It's a horrible idea, considering the government is the party that would be arresting you. 3. Look, I would rather be shot than shoot someone, but I would really rather do neither. That would be a whole lot easier if we didn't have guns legal. 4. But Hasan bought his gun from a civilian gun store, and that's the point I'm getting at. Anybody could do it, and Hasan just happened to be part of the military. In regard to the point about the black market, unfortunately that will never go away. But, just as we try and crack down on drug dealers (no pun intended), we could crack down on gun sellers, and hopefully get the black market to a minimum. 5. Well, I would rather be optimistic and say that we should try and reduce crime instead of saying that we should just let it be. 6. Maybe so, but I would rather nobody gets shot during the altercation. As you said, 56% of felons wouldn't mess with someone who was armed. That means 44% would. As I said, I don't want anyone shot. Ideally, they would temporarily incapacitate the perpetrator. If not, you give in and then call the police once they leave. 7. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. What I meant was that it would be absolutely ridiculous if we had access to the same protection that the military had, as you said we should. We would have armored tanks and machine guns and other crazy things. It would be utter chaos if we could do that. 8. I'm not saying that the government can't be oppressive. You're putting an awful lot of attention to that fact. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't shoot government officials. Big difference. Even in Nazi Germany, you would be in hot water if you shot Hitler unless you were a member of the allied forces. And the next in command wasn't much better, so not much would change anyhow. 9. And I stand by may argument that they shouldn't. It does violate other people's rights, because I have the right to not be shot. That goes under the 3 unalienable, natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 10. So we arrest them. While you make some very good points, you are still missing the biggest one. If you put a child in a room with a bih red button and tell him not to push it, he probably will. While it is true that guns can be used for self defense, they are really just a big red button. They can kill people at the pull of a trigger. We don't want to give 350 million people easy access to a big red button, because it is virtually impossible that nobody would press it. Nidal Hasan pressed the red button 13 times. We don't want all of our citizens to be able to be Nidal Hasan. If you really need to shoot someone, join the army. And don't shoot government officials, as my opponent suggested, because that is a really awful idea. I would like to thank my opponent for her excellent arguments. I am looking forward to her next argument. However, I still believe that pro is the way to go. [1] http://content.nejm.org...