Gun Control

"Perhaps I worded it wrong. I meant that many people today interpret the amendment to allow ALL arms, even RPGs and extremely dangerous rifles. This is certainly not very rational." Of course it's not rational, but I'll bet hell will freeze over before I talk to someone I just met, and they want to buy assult rifles and RPGs. How would a citizen get an RPG in the US? They just wouldn't. There are many rational guns to have, but this isn't one of them. I don't interpret the amendment the way you said it. I'm sure I speak for the vast majority of the nation's gun owners. http://www.ar15.com... "Background checks will delay that a criminal obtains a gun, but he or she shall get it eventually. Okay, I grant you that point. However, I would rather have there be a delay instead of simply giving them an AK-47 or an RPG without any background checks." The current way of buying guns does not hand out assault rifles and RPGs to criminals. Walk into a Cabella's. You will not find an assault rifle or an RPG section. Criminals can only get those off the black market. These weapons are being sold illegally, which the government can't stop. "Actually, yes I do. Tell me, is gun control necessarily a bad thing? Certain gun control will delay criminals, but not completely stop them. I admit that. However, would you rather have there be a delay than simply give a criminal a dangerous weapon on the spot, giving them the chance to kill innocent children at a school, massacre individuals that are simply enjoying a movie, or simply destroy and ruin a large party?" Gun control is not a good or bad thing. It is an ineffective thing. I have proved this many times in the debate when pointing out that criminals will get guns no matter what. Also, backgrounds would not even cause a delay for most criminals. If they we're put in place, criminals would go straight to the black market, not waste their time with background checks. And again, neither of us have to prove that gun control is good or bad. I just have to prove that it's ineffective, which I have done throughout the debate. I apologize for my claim that gun control takes guns away from good people. Let me rephrase it. Gun control is a major inconvenience to law abiding citizens, and does not prevent, or even delay crime like it is intended to. I believe the liberals' perspective and logic on this issue are horrible. Here are how background checks work: a person goes into a store such as Bass Pro Shops to purchase a gun. The person gives the clerk his identification to enter into the computer. The FBI and the NICS usually read his information. The check usually takes five minutes, but it could go longer. If there are no red flags, he can buy the gun. This is a pretty short process, but why should the FBI have to read a law abiding citizen's information? Even though the person has nothing to hide, it's an invasion of privacy. Also, what exactly is a red flag? Could a person not be able to buy a gun because of a DUI? Which summons a question: Why would a murderer take the risk of being arrested when they can just buy the gun off the black market? http://www.cnn.com... "It seems very likely and quite possible, but my opponent has not provided proof of such a claim." You're right, all I did was provide logic. I will gladly give you proof. Many surveys say that criminals get their guns from the black market. 37% of criminals (after they were arrested of course) say that they could buy a black market gun in a week or less. Another 20% say they could buy a gun illegally in less than a day. This happens in many countries that have gun control. As you know, Russia is a country with strict gun control. With even slight gun control, black market sales increase. Criminals buy guns such as the ones on the second link below to use to kill people. Unfortunately, gun control can't stop this. The only thing that can stop this is catching the criminals. http://www.examiner.com... http://englishrussia.com... "And, I must ask again, how does gun control interfere with the gun rights of law-abiding citizens?" It doesn't interfere with law abiding citizen's right of getting a gun. However, it is an inconvenience to the buyer. If it is an inconvenience to the average buyer, and it does not prevent or delay crime, why do it? "Germany has great gun control. We should adopt a system similar to theirs. Isn't that logic? Also, I never said that gun control needs to be as strict as Russia's. It just needs to be strict enough." I would like you to explain Germany's gun control system. I am curious because I know how popular small and big game hunting are in Germany. When you said Germany has great gun control, I'm guessing you meant in urban areas where guns aren't needed as much. If I'm wrong please tell me. "How does this harm the economy? Those people can simply seek jobs in other industries. In fact, there are industries that are more secure and prosperous than the gun industry." Gun control harms the economy because it runs thousands of people out of their jobs. If background checks were put in place, or if ammunition was limited, gun businesses' sales would drop. Some people who don't support background checks may stop buying guns. And obviously companies would experience a drop in ammunition sales. These two things could run people out of business. I think it's pretty harsh to say, "People can simply seek jobs in other industries." Why should people lose their jobs for something that probably won't even work? Before I write my conclusion, I would like to make one more claim: Americans as a whole are dissatisfied with gun control. I strongly urge you and all of the voters to click the link below. It has many graphs to support my claim. http://www.gallup.com... Conclusion Gun control is not necessary in the United States for many reasons that I have explained throughout the debate. My opponent has listed things I missed. The first two things and the last thing I have covered. I don't believe that either of us has to prove that gun control is good or bad. I have argued that it is unnecessary and ineffective. I encourage you to do the opposite. Here are some errors that you have made. "Lack of sources and information to back up claims "Excessive use of the word "logic" I believe that this has been a very good and competitive debate. I wish you good luck in the voting process and in your future debates!