Gun Control

Rebuttals"Some of what you wrote is the same as what the actual amendment said. What's the difference between keeping and bearing arms, and keeping and bearing arms at all?" 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. "I want to keep my guns exactly the way they are now, not inflict violence on other innocent people." The same cannot be said about other individuals. That is why background checks are needed. Tell me, how are you going to prevent crime? Even if background checks are not the perfect solution, you can at least try. 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. It is completely absurd, irrational, and illogical that one could get their hands on such dangerous weapons without any regulations and checks. I want my opponent to explain this. "Law abiding means that a citizen obeys the law and if they do not, they are no longer law abiding. Much more often then not, law abiding citizens pose no lethal threat to each other... Okay, so you want to enforce gun control on every citizen just to prevent the vast minority from committing crimes?" 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? I would, at least. I must concede, gun control is not 100% effective. However, my opponent is on the Con side of this debate, thus he must prove that gun control is necessarily a BAD thing, which he has not yet done. "I'm glad you asked. It's because gun control takes away guns from law abiding citizens and criminals." I am confused here. You are not making sense to me. How does gun control, in any way, take guns away from law-abiding citizens? It does not. Gun control is aimed at criminals. That is simple logic. The Conservative logic on this issue is rather horrible. Let me try and explain it: So, there are background checks. A law-abiding citizen goes to a gun store and tries to purchase a rifle. The store manager says, "Sorry, you cannot buy that." The person says, "Why? I am a law-abiding citizen." The store manager responds with, "Sorry. That's the law." Does this scenario work? No, it does not. Background checks are aimed at criminals and individuals with a negative record. This is logic. This is common sense. "Background checks would defineitly increase sales of guns on the black market." It seems very likely and quite possible, but my opponent has not provided proof of such a claim. "If a person with a criminal record is rejected from buying a gun legally, he will go and buy guns off the black market. Limited Ammunition would not solve anything either. Criminals can still kill people with shotguns, pistols and basic rifles. As for regulation of gun production, there are already so many guns available that criminals can easily obtain. These three methods of gun control that you mentioned only interfere with a law-abiding citizen's gun rights. I don't need a source to back up this information. This is logic." No, this is not logic. In fact, this is completely illogical. My opponent has not provided direct evidence that gun control will lead to more guns being sold at the black market. And, I must ask again, how does gun control interfere with the gun rights of law-abiding citizens? It does not. I am sorry, but I will need to emphasize it: IT DOES NOT. Gun control is meant to slow criminals, not completely stop them. I believe that was implied. Gun control was never meant to eradicate all crime. It is meant to reduce crime, which it does. That, my friend, is logic. "Germany is actually a country with significant gun ownership. Hunting is very popular in Germany, so citizens manage to obtain guns. Germany is a great example of a European country that uses guns legally and responsibly. Some others are France, Finland, and Norway. Luxembourg has totally banned guns for their citizens and their murder rate is nine times higher than that of Germany. Like I mentioned earlier, Russia is a country with some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Their murder rate is four times higher than that of the United States." 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. "As for how gun control would have a direct impact on the economy, I believe I have explained this in my previous argument. Obviously, you're not satisfied yet. During the recent recession, the gun industry created 37,000 new jobs with an average salary of $47,000 a year. If you are sti not convinced, please feel free to click the link below." 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. "Being that in most states there is almost no form of gun control, you must convince me to want gun control. I personally own and use firearms, and for the most part, I am backed up by the second amendment to keep my guns. It is going to take a lot to convince me to have to go through background checks and limit my magazine size. Quite frankly, I'm not even close to being convinced." I respect your view. I am not in agreeance with you, but I will protect your right of free speech. You can make whatever arguments you wish. However, I urge you to listen to reason. I urge you to simply read my arguments again and think. That is what I did with your arguments, but I was not even close to convinced. I will now summarize my issues with my opponent's arguments:- My opponent has not provided direct evidence that gun control harms the economy.- My opponent has not make a link between the black market and gun control except for his "logic." - My opponent has not made an argument to show that gun control is necessarily a bad thing. - My opponent has not acknowledged that gun control does not interfere with the gun rights of law-abiding citizens and that gun control is aimed at criminals. I now close this entry and allow my opponent to make one final motion. I wish him good luck. The better debater shall win.