"Gun laws punish honest citizens. Criminals will arm themselves anyway."

The Argument: Criminals intent on obtaining guns will find a way to circumvent legislation. (They're criminals, right? What do laws mean to them?) The only ones hurt by tighter restrictions are regular citizens who want the weapons either for sport or self-protection. In fact, further restrictions on gun purchases would leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of gun-toting criminals.

The Response: Empirical evidence from countries where guns are tightly regulated (e.g., England) strongly suggests that criminals are more hesitant to use guns when doing so makes their crimes dramatically more serious. Even if criminals are intent on acquiring guns, the cost, time, and risk involved would be far higher if there were strict gun laws on the books. Incidents such as the Columbine High School shooting demonstrate that, where guns are easily accessible, they can often fall into the hands of minors and others with tragic consequences.

"Guns protect the rights and freedoms of the individual."

The Argument: Our country began when a group of colonists rose up in arms against British rule. Guns empower the masses: they are the last line of defense for a citizenry confronted with an evil government. The regimes of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's U.S.S.R. recognized this principle and seized all weapons, precluding any effectual resistance to their tyranny. What would America do if our government turned against us? Our options would be limited if the government were given a monopoly on guns. One need only read the newspapers in New York and Los Angeles to realize that even the innocent have cause to fear the police. Communities around the country are justifiably hesitant to relinquish their weapons and be at the mercy of local law enforcement.

The Response: Most of the other advanced nations in Europe and Asia see gun restrictions as compatible with democracy. The only grand-scale armed rebellion since our nation's inception occurred when the Confederacy chose to fight the Civil War in the name of slavery; their actions are now considered antithetical to democracy everywhere except in South Carolina. Although it is true that our country was founded by armed militias, that was over two-hundred years ago and the high-tech weaponry of our modern military could easily crush a civilian uprising. The key to ensuring democracy lies in the proliferation of informed citizens not armed ones.

"If people obeyed the current laws, there would be no need
for further restrictions on gun purchases."

The Argument: Our society currently has hundreds of pages of laws that govern the sale and use of guns. Since 1993, Congress has spent 300 million dollars on a National Instant Check System (NICS) in an effort to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the wrong people. Yet, despite the expense and intrusiveness of this system, it has still been documented to be incomplete and error prone, occasionally flagging innocent citizens and frequently allowing the guilty to purchase weapons unabated. We need to sure up our existing methods before we even think about incorporating more complicated and expensive suggestions.

The Response: Regardless of how well our laws are enforced, there are significant loopholes in current gun legislation. Most notably, we lack adequate regulation of the sales of firearms at gun shows; we need a national gun registry to aid law enforcement, and we should enact laws that require all guns sold to have basic security features such as trigger locks. These failures in our current legislation literally put guns in the hands of "the wrong people" every day.

"Guns don't kill people, people do. We need to worry about values, not guns."

The Argument: People who use guns for nefarious purposes do so because they don't respect the laws and morals of this country. It is this underlying lack of respect that is ultimately to blame for our nation's crime problem. Washington lawmakers, rather than devoting time and energy to gun issues, should instead focus their efforts on turning back the erosion of values in this country. Better schools, more role models in government, and less glorification of violence in the media - these are the real solutions.

The Response: There is nothing mutually exclusive about family values and gun regulations. The world is a safer place without guns: misguided individuals clearly pose less of a threat when they are less well-armed. A government that recognizes this truth and acts accordingly is fulfilling its responsibility to preserve lives.

This post was last modified: 06-01-2008 07:21 AM by BradyCampaign.

"The world is a safer place without guns: misguided individuals clearly pose less of a threat when they are less well-armed. A government that recognizes this truth and acts accordingly is fulfilling its responsibility to preserve lives. "
You can believe that uintil the day somebody is attacking you with a knife or a brick and because he has a weapon or is physically able to overpower you you have no way to stop the attack and defend yourself,same individual attacks a little old lady with a .38 special revolver and little old lady equalises situation and Bad Guy isn't gonna be robbing and attacking anybody ever again see how much more civilised a gun made society

The Amendment is to blame and should...pass more stringent gun control laws..


________________________
orange county dui lawyer

A person with a gun should always and take care that the gun kept at a safe place out of the reach of the children. There are many such cases in the past. The gun provided to him has been given for his protection and not for your personal use whenever you feel like. Providing the gun should be avoided in most cases and should be made available to those who are capable of handling and taking care of it.

Well if everyone had a handgun to protect themselves, then criminals would just use a more powerful gun like an assault weapon. If everyone had an assault weapon, then criminals would use IEDs and bombs. A criminal won't risk getting shot at by the victim, they'll just kill them and then rob them. I would argue that we need more stringent gun control and go the opposite of what I've foreshadowed in the above scenarios.