New Member Debate: (Domestic) Gun Proliferation

Alright, hopefully the debates I present can be interesting. Also, sources are optional for the time being-- we all have the ability to google facts and can do so on the fly. I assume we can all tell the differences between legitimate & erroneous sources. I will open without researching what I currently understand, (should make it easier yes?). ---------------------------------------------------- I posit that gun control in the US is both unconstitutional and counter-productive. ---------------------------------------------------- C1: The 'founding fathers' fully intended every American to have access the same firearms issued to an army. In arguments concerning gun control, one point touched upon routinely by gun-control enthusiasts is that, "(The founding fathers never envisioned automatic weapons and armor-piercing rounds when they wrote the second amendment)." This infers that the 2nd amendment would be written differently had guns of the day possessed the same killing power of modern firearms. I put forth that when the amendment was written, there was no difference in the power of firearms private citizens were to be allowed to carry and that of the firearms allotted to the armies & militias of the time. I.E., the originators of the 2nd amendment showed no intentions of limiting the power private citizens could wield relative to the cutting edge of the day. -- if they had, one could assume they would only protect pistols, muskets, and perhaps rifles of only certain makes, calibers, or capabilities.-- E.G. Kentucky rifles provide too much power to the citizenry, as they could (too) easily dispatch many people at long distances. Furthermore, I remember the gist of a quote from one of authors stating, in effect, that any invasion of America would be thwarted in a manner impossible anywhere else because the invader would be met with an army the size of the entire population. ---------------------------------------------------- C2: Gun availability and Crime rates do not make a trend-line 2 points here: ----In England, any and all guns are prohibited, yet violent crimes and murders have not gone down-- but stabbings and bludgeons have gone up. ----In the western US, there is almost no such thing as 'strong-arm robbery'. The reason? If you attempt to rob a convenience store by pulling out a gun and demanding money, you can expect to find: 1. The clerk holding a shotgun to you under the counter 2. The person behind you in line putting a revolver to your head 3. Every other customer in the store pulling out their guns as well What I am saying is that not only is gun-control ineffectual in curbing violent crime, but could also play the opposite role in allowing more crimes to be committed. -The gun has been called 'The great equalizer' because it allows anyone the same ability to defend themselves as anyone else. Furthermore, these laws only prevent lawful citizens from acquiring and possessing firearms. Those that will commit murder with a firearm most likely aren't going to worry about the illegality of possessing one. The result is a *near-defenseless* citizenry and a criminal element (almost) as deadly as before. ---------------------------------------------------- C3: Accidental deaths, aggression, the kitchen sink Mini-contentions-- 1. Accidental deaths by firearms are more likely to happen due to an ignorance of them, not exposure to them. If timmy knows guns are dangerous, what a real one looks like and what (not) to do if he finds one, he's less likely to accidentally shoot his friend. Likewise, less exposure is more apt to producing users unfamiliar to using a firearm and thus more likely to make mistakes. 2. Having a firearm doesn't lead to an angry husband or bar-crawler shooting someone when they otherwise only would have assaulted them. This argument is the same as 'legalizing heroine won't cause every cannabis smoker to become a dope-junky'. If anything bars where firearms aren't prohibited are more polite, as one can never know who is packing. 3. Our phobia of guns is causing wonton division. Why do we want gun control? Because we don't trust each other with guns. May it be billy-bob the stereotypical redneck from deliverance, those crazy gun-nuts at the range, or the scary black person walking down the street, we can't seem to believe we aren't about to kill each other. --And we seem to be so afraid of this imagined confrontation that we are willing to attempt to wrap invisible chains about each other to prevent it. We need to have the courage to defend ourselves, each other, and to respect each other as fellow countrymen, not castrate each other for want of rape. ---------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: I contend that the freedom to possess and use firearms is one of the traits that has set the US apart from much of the world in the past, and is an integral piece of our heritage. If we lacked it, we would not have the same character we have today, and to remove it would only serve to weaken our national unity.