Published on idebate.org (http://idebate.org)
This House would limit the right to bear arms
This is a discussion on the Debatabase item titled: This House would limit the right to bear arms [1].Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!
Guns are used to kill. That is the main problem with them. The right to bear arms is honestly kind of liberal because as long as you have a gun license, and have not committed any felony, you are allowed to have one. It is pretty easy to steal someone’s identity or fake your track record for the purpose of buying a gun. Someone could say that they are buying it because they do sports shooting or because they want to keep it in their house for protection, while the truth is that they are buying it to kill someone. To ensure that they are really telling the truth and that they are not faking anything, the person wanting to buy a gun should go to court and testify that they have not done any felony, proving their statement by showing their track record, which would be handed in by a police officer, not the future buyer of a gun. If the track record is clean and the buyer has proper licensing, ho would be allowed to buy the gun. If the buyer has committed a felony, no matter how big or small, he should not be allowed to buy the gun.
I think that instead of making people goto court to testify to get a gun would just make the courts full. There are many people who a gun and they would go to court.
It certainly would - better that it is done by a dedicated service that is specialised so faster
It's also not guns that kill people it's the person behind the gun pulling the trigger. Yes there maybe accidents with accidental shootings, but if you aren't stupid then you won't shoot yourself.
600 deaths [3] from accidental shootings in 2010. I also dont really agree with the sentiment - sure in some cases the person who shoots someone would have gone and beaten them to death instead, but would they all? I doubt it. Having a gun makes killing much simpler and makes it seem a risk free option.
Back on track is I would say guns helped protect our fore fathers, and if something happens in the United States then what would we have to protect ourselves.
Different world - the west was a lawless place, settlers had to face hostile natives, before that in the 13 colonies guns were needed to create a militia to fight off the British (and originally against natives). Are any of these circumstances the same now? Is there any chance of invasion in the near future... and if there is would citizens with shotguns make a difference?
but then what do people have to protect themselves, in a mass shooting before the cops, or government arrives.
Nothing; but on the other hand there would be considerably fewer shootings to start with, you end out ahead.
Also our second ammendment is the right to bear arms. Would you really want to limit that. If we limited that back way back when that we organized a militia and fought off the brits with guns. If we had a law limiting it we would've lost. So I think that we should keep it as it is.
As already mentioned the history bit here is a totally different context to today, I really cant see how anyone could take it seriously. The second ammendment is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." How about we be sensible and interpret this as you can bear arms but; only if you are in the militia? Or you have a right to keep your arms but only in the state armory rather than at home?
Yes there where 600 people shot, that just means we have 600 people that couldn't protect themselves. Who knows you could be one of those victims but if you have a weapon you will be able to protect yourself.
I believe in the right to bear arms but what you have written here is nonsensical. The 600 deaths are those who were killed by themselves as a result of accidents - children playing with the guns, accidential discharge, forgetting to unload before cleaning etc. They are not people who could have protected themselves by getting a gun, most presumably already owned one and that is why they were killed. The bit about accidental shootings was simply pointing out that sometimes it really is guns that kill people rather than the person and this is pretty uncontestable as unfortunately accidents do happen.
A much better response to this part of booji's counter to you would have been to take on the second part of what he said:
sure in some cases the person who shoots someone would have gone and beaten them to death instead, but would they all? I doubt it. Having a gun makes killing much simpler and makes it seem a risk free option.
and argue that far from making it a risk free option both sides having a gun immensely increases the risk if both sides have a gun. As a result there is a kind of deterrance.
Submitted by Guillermo Pico on 25 July 2012.
Guns are used to kill. That is the main problem with them. The right to bear arms is honestly kind of liberal because as long as you have a gun license, and have not committed any felony, you are allowed to have one. It is pretty easy to steal someone’s identity or fake your track record for the purpose of buying a gun. Someone could say that they are buying it because they do sports shooting or because they want to keep it in their house for protection, while the truth is that they are buying it to kill someone. To ensure that they are really telling the truth and that they are not faking anything, the person wanting to buy a gun should go to court and testify that they have not done any felony, proving their statement by showing their track record, which would be handed in by a police officer, not the future buyer of a gun. If the track record is clean and the buyer has proper licensing, ho would be allowed to buy the gun. If the buyer has committed a felony, no matter how big or small, he should not be allowed to buy the gun.
- Login to reply [2]
Submitted by Christian Sanchez on 3 September 2012.
I think that instead of making people goto court to testify to get a gun would just make the courts full. There are many people who a gun and they would go to court. That would push back court cases that actually matter like if someone actually committed a felony. It's also not guns that kill people it's the person behind the gun pulling the trigger. Yes there maybe accidents with accidental shootings, but if you aren't stupid then you won't shoot yourself. Back on track is I would say guns helped protect our fore fathers, and if something happens in the United States then what would we have to protect ourselves. If that law that we would have to goto court then people would be waiting if the legal system is still there. That would lead to raids on gun stores, etc. But back from red dawn. I personally think that if someone who buys a gun buys a gun. There maybe incidents of shootings, but then what do people have to protect themselves, in a mass shooting before the cops, or government arrives. Yes I agree that people are stupid and shoot people for no apparent reasons as most the time their apparently "Crazy" and thats how they get off the hook. Also our second ammendment is the right to bear arms. Would you really want to limit that. If we limited that back way back when that we organized a militia and fought off the brits with guns. If we had a law limiting it we would've lost. So I think that we should keep it as it is.
- Login to reply [2]
Submitted by booji on 3 September 2012.
I think that instead of making people goto court to testify to get a gun would just make the courts full. There are many people who a gun and they would go to court.
It certainly would - better that it is done by a dedicated service that is specialised so faster
It's also not guns that kill people it's the person behind the gun pulling the trigger. Yes there maybe accidents with accidental shootings, but if you aren't stupid then you won't shoot yourself.
600 deaths [3] from accidental shootings in 2010. I also dont really agree with the sentiment - sure in some cases the person who shoots someone would have gone and beaten them to death instead, but would they all? I doubt it. Having a gun makes killing much simpler and makes it seem a risk free option.
Back on track is I would say guns helped protect our fore fathers, and if something happens in the United States then what would we have to protect ourselves.
Different world - the west was a lawless place, settlers had to face hostile natives, before that in the 13 colonies guns were needed to create a militia to fight off the British (and originally against natives). Are any of these circumstances the same now? Is there any chance of invasion in the near future... and if there is would citizens with shotguns make a difference?
but then what do people have to protect themselves, in a mass shooting before the cops, or government arrives.
Nothing; but on the other hand there would be considerably fewer shootings to start with, you end out ahead.
Also our second ammendment is the right to bear arms. Would you really want to limit that. If we limited that back way back when that we organized a militia and fought off the brits with guns. If we had a law limiting it we would've lost. So I think that we should keep it as it is.
As already mentioned the history bit here is a totally different context to today, I really cant see how anyone could take it seriously. The second ammendment is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." How about we be sensible and interpret this as you can bear arms but; only if you are in the militia? Or you have a right to keep your arms but only in the state armory rather than at home?
- Login to reply [2]
Submitted by Christian Sanchez on 7 September 2012.
Well how would you get to your state armory if it happens without warning? Also you never know when something will happen maybe it will happen today or tommorow. Yes there where 600 people shot, that just means we have 600 people that couldn't protect themselves. Who knows you could be one of those victims but if you have a weapon you will be able to protect yourself. Yes i do agree though that maybe they should go through some kind of preperation and background check before they get a gun, but not actually go to court. That would just hold up the judicial system...
- Login to reply [2]
Submitted by Alastair Stevens on 7 September 2012.
Yes there where 600 people shot, that just means we have 600 people that couldn't protect themselves. Who knows you could be one of those victims but if you have a weapon you will be able to protect yourself.
I believe in the right to bear arms but what you have written here is nonsensical. The 600 deaths are those who were killed by themselves as a result of accidents - children playing with the guns, accidential discharge, forgetting to unload before cleaning etc. They are not people who could have protected themselves by getting a gun, most presumably already owned one and that is why they were killed. The bit about accidental shootings was simply pointing out that sometimes it really is guns that kill people rather than the person and this is pretty uncontestable as unfortunately accidents do happen.
A much better response to this part of booji's counter to you would have been to take on the second part of what he said:
sure in some cases the person who shoots someone would have gone and beaten them to death instead, but would they all? I doubt it. Having a gun makes killing much simpler and makes it seem a risk free option.
and argue that far from making it a risk free option both sides having a gun immensely increases the risk if both sides have a gun. As a result there is a kind of deterrance.
- Login to reply [2]
Submitted by Christian Sanchez on 7 September 2012.
Well how would you get to your state armory if it happens without warning? Also you never know when something will happen maybe it will happen today or tommorow. Yes there where 600 people shot, that just means we have 600 people that couldn't protect themselves. Who knows you could be one of those victims but if you have a weapon you will be able to protect yourself. Yes i do agree though that maybe they should go through some kind of preperation and background check before they get a gun, but not actually go to court. That would just hold up the judicial system...
- Login to reply [2]
Source URL: http://idebate.org/discussions/debatabase-discussions/politics/house-would-limit-right-bear-arms
Links:
[1] http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law-crime/house-would-limit-right-bear-arms
[2] http://idebate.org/user/login
[3] http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
[1] http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law-crime/house-would-limit-right-bear-arms
[2] http://idebate.org/user/login
[3] http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
No comments:
Post a Comment