- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
"Both Australia and Britain, for example, experienced gun massacres in 1996 and subsequently enacted stricter gun control laws. Their murder rates dropped."
"Repealing the Second Amendment will not create a culture of life in one stroke. Stricter gun laws will not create a world free of violence, in which gun tragedies never occur. We cannot repeal original sin. Though we cannot create an absolutely safe world, we can create a safer world. This does not require an absolute ban on firearms. In the post-repeal world that we envision, some people will possess guns: hunters and sportsmen, law enforcement officers, the military, those who require firearms for morally reasonable purposes. Make no mistake, however: The world we envision is a world with far fewer guns, a world in which no one has a right to own one. Some people, though far fewer, will still die from gun violence. The disturbing feeling that we have failed to do everything in our power to remove the material cause of their deaths, however, will no longer compound our grief." -http://americamagazine.org/issue/
The criminals would then be easier to find and try(judicial) as they can't dispute their own guns using the 2nd amendment to defend themselves. Also, “Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.” Therefore, each state could accordingly discuss resolutions and effectively use them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/
You'd actually be more likely, statistically speaking, to shoot someone by accident than you are to shoot a home invader. Also, Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.- http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/
as I said before People with firearms are at risk of being shot. Based from the study conducted by Charles Branas PhD, he said that those persons who are carrying a weapon for defending themselves are 4.5 times more at risk to be shot in an assault compared to those crime victims who don’t have a gun. It means that a gun might not be the most efficient and reliable type of self-protection. It is also believed that most people with weapons are not trained adequately to use them.
People with firearms are at risk of being shot. Based from the study conducted by Charles Branas PhD, he said that those people who are carrying a weapon for defending themselves are 4.5 times more at risk to be shot in an assault compared to those crime victims who don’t have a gun. It means that a gun might not be the most efficient and reliable type of self-protection. It is also believed that most people with weapons are not trained adequately to use them.
Even self defense has a limit:
Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
In recent news, a man lost his son from a shooting in a school, this dad had always thought that the second amendment was a great a rule, after the shooting and the lost of his son, this shows how amendment 2 had a big impact on his family.
Each year in the United States, approximately 30,000 people, or 80 per day, die from gun violence. True, guns don't kill people; people kill people. In the United States, however, people kill people by using guns. The murder rate in America is 15 times higher than in other first-world countries; the majority of these murders are committed with guns. As for the notion that guns are necessary in order to defend oneself from an intruder with a gun: One study of three U.S. cities revealed that injuries involving guns kept at home almost always resulted from accidental firings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicides by the residents, not self-defense scenarios. In October the American Academy of Pediatrics reminded us, “The safest home for children and teens is one without guns.”
When the second amendment was created in the 18th century, the US Government primarily relied on its people to fight during war as it had no regulated militia. Therefore, in the unfortunate event of a foreign invasion, the US depended on its civilians to defend itself. Clearly, a well-regulated civilian militia is no longer a military necessity for the United States. Therefore, the question arises that “Does the second clause of the Amendment still apply even if the first clause, providing its reason, is no longer meaningful?”.From this argument I believe that it is essentially clear that the second amendment should hold no validity today as its first clause which holds its justification is completely invalid and untrue. - already said by me.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!