Gun Control

=====REBUTTALS======Okay so as con, I feel it is my duty to prove that gun control is bad in all cases, and that it limits our freedom. The pro's goal in this debate, then is to prove that gun control is inevitably a logical choice, that doens't inflict on our rights and freedoms. "Does every individual need a weapon when the needs of collective security are already met? "Sure why not? I see no logical reasoning that should limit us from gun use. What happens when 'collective security' fails? What do we have when we can't get to the phone in time, to call the police? What happens when they show up late? A gun may be next to the only option of survival. Guns can be used to provide self defence and security, and are a fail safe in case the world ever turns corrupt. We have rights, not only constitutionally to bear arms, but instinctually. Every human has the right to protect him or herself, and if a gun has the ability to do this, then I see no reason as to why we should ban them or regulate them. "Some political parties and advocacy groups assert that it is the right of every citizen to own a firearm, because they choose to interpret the constitution in the same literal sense that we as a nation recognize to be absurd in relation to the right to form militias."I would have to argue here, that this is not the viewpoint that is shared nationwide. It is a privilige granted by the US constitution. What reason do we have to doubt the US constitution on this issue? Even you concede that hunting, self defence, and sport use of guns would be practical use of firearms. So then we must assume that you yourself agree that banning or regulating guns would be harmful, and extremely un-beneficial. More on this next."We must recognize on a national level and codify it into law that there are only three legitimate reasons for personal firearm ownership.1)Personal Defense.2)Hunting.3)Competitive shooting and similar gun based sports." This argument in and of itself, proves that gun laws are silly. How are we supposed to keep firearms for self defence, hunting, and sport, while having are rights to bearing them revoked? If we cannot keep a firearm, then we cannot use a firearm, for any of your three reasons above. Also I would like to ask, if not one of those three things, really what else does a human have the need for a gun? This argument is abusive as it almost demands that I advocate gun control in a world where civilians use guns to perform acts of crime. No, as pro, your goal in this debate should be to prove that Gun control is harmful in all situations. "With legislative recognition of legitimate civilian firearms, we can rule out the legality of certain weapons, such as assault rifles."I have to question whether or not the legitimacy of this argument bears any sense or reasoning. An AK47, or any other assault rifle, have the same potential of causing human death as an single handed firearm does. The question of this debate isn't which guns should be allowed, and for what specific uses, the question you should be trying to answer is whether it is moral or logical to even use them at all. "By making it harder for firearms to be purchased on a national level, and by removing firearms from the market by buying them back from the populace, we can drive up the cost for illegal firearms and eventually make them unaffordable to the average criminal."We cannot do this, because this simply will not deter criminals from crime. Just as people have the ability to buy and sell illegal narcotics and drugs, people will still have the ability to purchase firearms. The national level will be irrelevant, as such purchases can be made benificial to others at an international level.We are taking away the guns from the innocent, the ones who have more need for them, and placing them inadvertantly right into the hands of the criminals. Security measures when breaking into ones home, now become empty and meaningless to any criminal. ======MY CASE======OUR RIGHTSGiven that this debate is a challenge on what ought to be rather than what is, I am arguing that owning and operating fire arms are rights indivually granted to us. These are god-given rights, not just constitutional ones. Guns are something that most people are supportive of, from all parties, Even democratic ones. Are gun rights more than just some political issue? What significance to they play in our lives? Statistics show that people own guns for the following reasons: 67% say protection against, another 66% own them for target practice (sport), and 41% own them for hunting.http://www.justfacts.com... Guns make people feel safe. Every individual has the right to feel secure. Every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Guns enable those rights to better be established, as they help us to protect each one of those qualities. RESPONSIBILITYRights should be taken away when someone violates their privileges. That way we can take away the guns from those who have justifiable reasoning to take them. An alternative to taking guns away, would be to regulate who recieves them. Those who complete gun safety courses can take psychiatric exams before gaining the privilege to own and potentially use their firearm. Taking away guns from those who own them with moral intent, is abusive to our nation and it's people.We as humans deserve the right to protect ourselves. Removing guns will just add to the problem.http://en.wikipedia.org...;Removing guns is not the answer anyway. Practically any item can replace a gun and prove to be just as harmful. People will find other ways to use weapons to commit crimes, even if they cannot get guns internationally. Removing guns is not the answer, it is strengthening the criminal justice department to better seek out criminal behavior on learn effective ways to stop it in advance.http://ricksparks.blogspot.com... MORE LAWS RESTRICTING FREEDOMGun control is putting our personal freedoms at risk. We who live in America pride ourselves on being a free country, but are slowly losing our grasp on that freedom. The more laws that are made, the more freedoms that are violated. We should be looking to protect the remaining right we do have, rather than seeking out to destroy the foundation of what our great country was built on. Taking away gun rights is limiting or nations and state soveirngty. We cannot let the act to take away guns, be a vehicle taking us down the path to communism. We need to realize that the constitution, the bill of rights, was made to enact and justify our freedoms. We need to stay strong in ourselves, and protect our freedoms. Limiting our rights should be a crime worse than any. Every day we lose more and more of what little freedeom we have left, as each new law is passed. Let us protect what is left that belongs to us, such that we can create a better country with what we have. ======CONCLUSION===== I feel that I have succesfully fulfilled my burden as Con in advocating against gun control policies.I would like to note that my opponent more or less agrees in several of his arguments that gun control is unneccesary for a few reasons. This means we must look to the fact that guns are essential means for protection, as my opponent points out.We cannot take away gun rights because we are giving guns to the criminals, and furthering the problem.So we must look to my three main points when evaluating this round.1. Our rights will be violated by removing guns.2. We as humans have the burden of responsibility, that should define our use or possesion of guns.3. And finally, we need to stop limiting our few remaining freedoms. In order to remain fully free, we should hold on to the freedoms that are most important.It is for all the reasons I have stated above, that I urge to to vote in negation to the resolution. Thankyou.