Gun Control Debates?

Question

Im doing a debate on gun control, and I got picked to be anti-gun control (as in I dont think guns should be banned, and people should be able to carry them around).

I have lots of good stats, but my oponents main argument is "Why does anyone need to walk around with an AK-47 or an uzi?" How do I respond to that? I cant really think of a good argument of WHY someone should be able to walk around with an automatic gun, or any kind of rebuttle.

Thanks for any responses.

Answer 1

Subject: GUN CONTROL


Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.
Something to think about...
-----------------------------
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. ------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:

. Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed
robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past
12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience
and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our
president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of
this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

Answer 2

Why should the AK47 or Uzi be different than any other firearm? Americans should be able to own and carry any kind of firearm they want to. Those that say that there is no use for these kinds of arms are misinformed. These guns are great for self defense, or for use as "fun guns", which, as their title implies, are for hobby shooting, or plinking. Most AK47's and Uzi's in this country are semiautomatic -they are incapable of full auto fire. Many people may not know this and think these are full auto. An AK or Uzi is no less useful or more deadly than any other firearm. Saying so is showcasing your ignorance.

Answer 3

I am in favor of gun control but perhaps the best way to refute something like that statement would be..
No of course no one NEEDS to walk around with an AK-47 or an Uzi, however it is their constitutionally protected right to bear arms, you can not take that right away just because gun manufacturers have come up with a faster better product.
Compare it to lets say, Teenage driving right? The law says that teenagers are allowed to drive with proper instruction. Should only teenagers with slower 4 door safe cars be allowed to drive? Should we prohibit teens from driving whose parents by them a mustang convertible? No of course not.
Now a teenager in a fast car is deadlier than a teenager in a slow responsible car, but all cars can kill. You cant take away one type and leave the others. It has to be an equal across the board regulation or it doesnt work.

Answer 4

I don't necessarily think guns should be restricted. I do think that the process of purchasing a gun should be uniform and streamlined. I also think that firearms should be registered and that people should be screened for mental health purposes. How to do that is the big question. Finally, we could consider going back to banning high capacity clips for consumers. All that would help. But the right to own a gun is clear and cannot be debated any longer.

Answer 5

Ah the "nobody needs" argument. One of my favorites to shut down.

The way to respond to that is that saying something should be banned because nobody "needs" it is contrary to the fundamentals of a free society. You don't have to prove you "need" an AK-47 anymore than you should have to prove you need a car with 450 horsepower or a $10,000 TV. To suggest that something should be banned because it's not needed is to promote fascism.

Tell him that you don't have to answer that question because it's irrelevant whether a particular type of firearm is needed. Tell him that he needs to prove why something shouldn't be allowed if he wants to make a credible argument why it should be banned, and simply saying nobody needs something is not in any way shape or form a credible argument.

As far as "walking around" with an automatic rifle, that's a strawman. (look up what that means). No mainstream gun rights group has ever claimed that citizens should walk around with rifles, but rather concealed handguns. To say that gun rights people want everybody to carry an AK-47 is like saying abortion rights groups want every baby to be aborted. It's a deliberate perversion of their true position in order to make them out to be radicals.

Hope this helps!

Answer 6

Good Luck!

Because there is no good rebuttal! As you said yourself there is no good reason for people to walk around with an assault weapon!

Think of some possible reasons;

1) Self defense; No, a handgun maybe but an assault weapon? The NRA types might say "the criminal can have one so the law-abiding citizen has to protect himself". This kind of logic can go on forever ad absurdum. What about rocket launchers? Biological agents? Nerve toxins? Dirty bombs? Nuclear missiles?

2) The constitution protects this right. Well the same logic applies as in #1. If we can bear arms shouldn't we all be able to have nuclear missiles in our garage in case a criminal goes by in his truck with a nuclear weapon attached to his trailer? The second amendment says nothing about protecting the individuals right to bear arms that are clearly unsafe to the average citizen.

3) Safety in the home. Common sense need only be applied here.

Answer 7

Personal defense!

You have the right to protect your home/land at all costs that is a fundamental right of this country. Just because our country is 'on top' and nobody really needs big guns anymore...civilizations come and go...it has been proven throughout history.

We've seen how close terrorists have come to attacking our way of life and security.....there is no proof that the military or government will always be able to protect you and your home!

Answer 8

Because the second Amendment isn't to protect the rights of hunters or target shooters (although they are blanketed by it), but it is to protect the freedom of Democracy and protection of America in case of invasion.

If a country invaded America, do you think that bolt-action .22 rifles would do much good against fully-automatic assault rifles? Or if the government decided it wanted to be a Dictatorship, we would have to fight the Military's weapons, which if gun control passes we wouldn't stand much of a chance. As civilians, we would have to have at least equal firepower to a potential enemy, to protect our freedom.

Answer 9

In a gun control debate you can't play defense, you have to play offense.

"Like freedom of speech it is a right that our forefathers did not want the government to take away from us. The right of every American to protect them self. It is not the governments job to tell us how we are suppose to protect our self."

For the record I am EXTREMELY in favor of strict anti-gun regulation.

Answer 10

guns like this are fun at target ranges and you personal property. places that there should be no guns like cities and such, can easily have laws to keep them out