|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Should laws be passed to limit gun ownership further? |
|
|
| |
Author:Alastair Endersby ( United Kingdom )
Alastair learnt to debate at the Cambridge Union but discovered his real talents lay in coaching when he started teaching. He has twice coached England teams in the World Schools Debating Championships. Alastair currently teaches History and Politics at Bishop Wordsworth's School in Salisbury, England. He is the Editor of Debatabase.
Created: Monday, October 02, 2000
Last Modified: Tuesday, April 14, 2009
|
| |
Gun laws vary widely from country to country, so this topic focuses upon arguments for tightening gun laws in principle. Particular debates might centre upon different categories of guns (for example automatic weapons, handguns or shotguns), licensing requirements for ownership, the right to carry concealed weapons, or requirements that manufacturers increase the safety features on their weapons. The USA is exceptional in protecting the right to own firearms in the Second Amendment to its Constitution, and gun control has been a major issue in American politics over the last few years, partly due to a series of tragic massacres involving children. |
 |
|
|
The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from our society, the safer it will be. In the U.S.A death by gunshot has become the leading cause of death among some social groups. Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better.
|
|
Prohibition is not the answer, especially not in countries such as the USA where gun ownership is such an entrenched aspect of society. Banning guns would not make them disappear or make them any less dangerous. It is a legitimate right of citizens to own weapons with which to protect themselves, their family, and their property (see point 4). Many people also need guns for other reasons. For example, farmers need guns in order to protect their stock and crops from pests, e.g. rabbits, birds, deer, foxes, stray dogs attacking sheep, etc. |
 |
|
|
The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic deaths. Legally held guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.
|
|
Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Restricting gun ownership will do nothing to make society safer as it is the intent of the criminal we should fear, and that will remain the same whatever the gun laws. In the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. Many of these illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, rather than being stolen from registered owners. |
|
|
|
Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority, who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of their economic loss if a ban is implemented.
|
|
Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated. In addition, field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection. |
|
|
|
Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings. No amount of property is worth a human life. Perversely, the danger of attack by homeowners may make it more likely that criminals will carry their own weapons. If a right to self-defence is granted in this way, many accidental deaths are bound to result.
|
|
Self-protection. Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.) |
|
|
|
There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because gun owners are more depressive, but because the means of quick and effective suicide is easily to hand. As many unsuccessful suicides are later glad that they failed in their attempt, the state should discourage and restrict the ownership of something that wastes so many human lives.
|
|
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use. Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny. |
|
|
|
| | This House calls for stricter controls on gun ownership
This House believes there is no right to bear arms
This House would prise the musket from Charlton Heston’s cold dead hands
|
| View the full discussion |
Author |
Post |
lenovo69
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 09:10 am
|
|
well,I don't think you give me a second choice if you said like this.I can just acknowledge that i'm living in a safe country which makes me pround of that.
|
colinwheeler
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:54 am
|
|
Well lenovo69, you are very fortunate to live in such a country. I come from Africa where governments quite often can't protect thier people and people quite often don't have the ability to leave the country easily.
I believe that a government and a gun both have uses in protecting people. Neither are very good at it, but I believe it should be the individual's choice.
You did not really answer my question, so should I assume that you are stating that if you lived in a country with no protection given to you by the government, you would choose not to carry a gun?
|
lenovo69
Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 9, 2010 05:49 am
|
|
[user=71969]colinwheeler[/user] wrote: Hi Lenovo69,
If your government did not protect you, then would you want to be able to carry a gun?
In fact,i would like to leave this country somehow if you assum like that . I don't think an organization can be called as government if it can't protect its people.Does a gun can really take good care of your safety? I don't think so. |
|
|
Login
to leave a quick reply or
View the full discussion
|
|
|
|
