Gun Control

When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection. + Tazers are nothing compared to guns. A person will shott you as you are trying to taze them. If you are trying to protect yourself from a person with a gun a tazer will do nothing to save you. - Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves. - The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this. - Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one. - In 2004 66% of murders were convicted by handgun, however, in the same year 51% of murders were convicted by cutting or stabbing. Where are the "Knife Control Laws?" My point is, if some sick, derranged person is going to kill, it will be done reguardless of what weapon he chooses. Why take the guns out of the hands of innocent people only trying to protect themselves? If the government plans to take our guns, make sure they don't forget to take everything that could remotely be used to kill. (knives, guns, rope, anything firm, or hard, pencils, plastic, etc.) - I said that we could modify tazers so they could be like guns. The person Could shoot from long range stoping the attacker without you killing them. + It is unreasonable to think that the people will accept and use tazers in a gun's stead. Guns are generally more effective and popular so people would not get rid of their guns to accept a gun like tazer. This is an unreasonable plan because the only people who would even consider using tazers in stead of guns are concerned citizens and criminals would still have and use guns. - When you say anybody could get a gun illegaly, I say it will be harder because they know that guns will be harder to get because the govt. could check every dock for guns,and the TSA would certainly not allow guns to be transported into the U.S. illegaly. And if you see somebody with a gun, people could inform the police and know that they are comiting a crime. I'm sure that if you say people can still deal drugs and stuff, it will be harder for people to deal guns, they are easier to see. + Guns are makeable in the united states, people can steal guns, people will keep guns, criminals will sneak guns across borders like they do people. Guns will never go away. If we allow citizens to have guns then they can fight criminals with guns. Its fighting fire with fire. You're just fighting fire with firewood. - It is true that criminals could attack with any other weapon but the purpose of gun control is not to get rid of all crime but to decrease it. For example if you have a cold and you take medicine to get rid of it, that wont stop it from cmoing back but it relieves and reduces the cold. + My point was that criminals would have guns and citizens would be reduced to fighting their guns with a sharpened pencils. This would increase crime because criminals would obtain guns and civilians would be defenseless. Also citizens will want to protect themselves and commit the crime of obtaing a gun making civilians criminals. - The second amendment states "A regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."I don't know if this is all new to you but we don't use a militia anymore. We have police departments as well as armed forces paid for a run by the government, not civilians like a regular militia. Also our founding fathers never thought of guns that could wipe out an entire class of chldren in mere seconds. Back then they had single loading muskets and pistols that took 5 minutes to load. + People have the right to keep and bear arms because if not then others could infringe on their rights including crmiinals. Eliminating the 2nd ammendment is what you are talking about. - Maybe you should change your name ( no offense intended) because if your going to call yourself "policydebategod" you should rebuke and debate every single argument not just 2 or 3 and add a new fact. + Maybe if you had made some arguments in stead of harms and inherency I could rebut your arguments. As you can see Im using line by line but Im starting to get non topical so my disads and kritiks are good enough. I now stand ready for crossexamination @$$hole