info on gun control?

Question

i am doing a debate very soon in which i am in favor of gun control. I need three main points. Does anyone know reliable websites or sources that could help me out? Also, opinions and facts from yourself can help too.

sorry i made a stupid mistake by putting this in hunting. haha i swear i didnt mean to :]
stupid on my part, i know.
but thanks for answering anyways! :]

and i AM NOT a stong supporter of gun control.
i HAVE to do it for a SCHOOL debate.
just in case u missed that part.

Answer 1

info on gun control
"More Guns Less Crime" - John Lott

http://www.nra.org

Answer 2

While I can not understand why you would 1-be in favor of gun control (after all, it is your choice, as well as any other American citizen TO OWN or NOT OWN a gun, no one can force you one way of the other, which is how it should be!) and 2-why would you post this question in sports? If I were you I would put this in politics, you have a better chance of getting an answer in your favor there. However, I would like to try to educate you a bit. Here are 3 good points for you along with a few websites you might want to look at.

1. 'Gun Control' takes the weapons away from law abiding citizens and thus leaves only criminals armed (after all, criminals usually do not obtain weapons legally).

2. It is in violation of all Americans' Second Amendment Rights.

3. According to BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), gun ownership is at an all time HIGH and violent crime is at a 30 year LOW.

Answer 3

well if by gun control you mean using both hands and hitting the x ring then, you asked your question in the right category. Otherwise you may want to delete it.

You may want to do some research because the only thing gun control has done for the U.S. is prevent or limit legal, responsible, citizen's rights. I live in IL, near Chicago and Chicago still has the same amount of violence, the shootings and armed crime with illegal guns. Chicago does not allow any guns in its city limits. Criminals do not care about what laws they break. That is why they are called criminals.

Answer 4

Not too many people in this section are going to help support some hippy nonsense like that.

However, I will see what I can do.

The three main points I could think of for supporting gun control would be-

* It gives criminals, who do not abide by laws, a better opportunity to make a better living by being able to mug citizens without fear of being shot.

* Corrupt governments can rule over their subjects without worrying about an armed uprising. They can live in decadence while we toil away barely making a living.

* Gun control also provides invading forces a much easier time at enslaving the public. Without 300 million guns to face, average citizens like you and me will be slaves to Commies or Islamofascists in no time.

Answer 5

Gun control is a disaster and nothing beautiful about it.

True gun control involves proper sight picture, trigger control, and breath control. The ultimate aim of real gun control is to put bullets on target.

Doc

Answer 6

Your gooberment educated teacher is forcing you into something that you shouldn't do.
tell her you do not wish to participate, and inform her you are a strong support of Gun rights and making "gun control" and issue is asinine.


See if you can get a copy of a book called:

"more guns, less crime" by John Lott PhD

Lott is a PhD Sociologist at the University of Chicago, he did some long term statistical studies of crime and guns, and found that in areas with strong gun rights views among the population and politicians, less crime occurs.

I am in favor of gun control as well, "a steady hand" is how I define my control.

Individual gun rights remain the sole guard against tyranny. Once government has control of arms tyranny is a given.

Some food for thought:

"A democracy is always temporary"

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature ; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. >From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage "

Answer 7

because the liberals do i will to

case 9/11/2001 4 planes hijacked by terrorists
2 crashed into the twin towers
1 crashed into the pentagon
1 in a Pennsylvania field

question how many guns were in the citizens hands ZERO
how much more gun control do you need????

my solution to our planes getting hijack by terrorists is
we start making the 45 liberators we dropped all over France in WWII again you get one with your ticket to board the plane with

I know "what about the terrorists?" give them one too it's a numbers game 200 people on a plane 20 terrorists i come up with 10 to 1

Answer 8

Writer Erk Larsen wrote a book that is really good about gun control. So good that gun control suppoprters ignored him becasue as a supporter of gun control he was critical of gun control suppoprters because of their ignorance about guns.

I believe in fair play becasue I know that in the end it is the gun control people who will be dancing to our tune-not theirs.

Answer 9

I will begin by saying I am adamantly against gun control. When I support something, I do my best to understand both sides of it. I will give some reasons I have heard. I may not agree with them. Facts may or may not support these reasons. However, you asked, so I will give an honest answer.

1. Guns cause gun crime. On the surface, this argument makes sense. If there were no guns, then there would be no gun crime. Statistics vary from site to site. According to the CDC website, there were about 30K gun related deaths in the USA in 2001.

2. The 2nd Amendment is outdated and with the modern military, has no place in society (or as Lisa Simpson put in the Simpson’s…” The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!”). As the largest unsecured border in the world is between Canada and the US, there isn’t much threat of being invaded by the Canucks. Mexico really hasn’t been a military threat to the US in many decades. After 200+ years, I think England has given up on ruling the new World. There are numerous police officers and crime rates are the lowest in years. There is no need for individuals to own guns.

3. Gun Control and/or banishment of guns has worked in countries such as the U.K, Australia, and Canada. All countries have murder rates much lower than the US (see http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita for data…nationmaster.com is a great website to find statistics for multiple countries)

4. Gun ownership can lead to oppressive rule (this argument can be turned against you very easily, just to warn you). In Japan, at one point, weapon ownership was limited to the rich/social elite. Because of this, it was easy for the elite to impose their will on the unarmed peasent population (see A History of Japan by Mason & Caiger). Be prepared as also in Japanese history, when the general population was armed, they were able to keep the elite who ruled society in check and allow the two social groups to live in fairness and harmony (see the same source).

5. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the family than an intruder. This is a fact that was outlined in a study done by Dr. Kellerman and Dr. Reay that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986 (Here is a link to the article abstract…you will probably need a subscription to an academic research database to access the full study..chances are your school has one). http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/24/1557 ) While this is a fact, there has been significant research in countering the study (and I think the study has been discredited very well). There is a website that talks briefly about why the study may be flawed http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

6. Access to firearms lead to moer deaths during domestic violence situations. Long story short, guns provide a quick, easy method of killing someone that requires little planning and virtually no time needed to formulate a plan. If guns were not available, then more lives would be saved during domestic violence situations. Here is a link that may or may not help: http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/Guns.pdf To be honest, I am not familiar with many rebuttals against this point.

7. The 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, thus individuals don’t have the right to own guns. While this isn’t really a reason for or against gun control, it is the hot potato of the gun control debate. The only case heard by the Supreme Court on gun control is United States vs. Miller (Supreme Court, 1939). The Miller case really didn’t rule that individuals have the right to own guns, but rather the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. It was concluded there was no conflict between the 2nd Amendment and the NFA. Miller is a case mainly used to promote the idea that the 2nd Amendment only guarantees that state militias have the right to bear arms.

There have been several circuit court decisions that seem to contradict the 1939 Supreme Court ruling. Parker vs. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2007) used the 2nd Amendment to rule that the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (DC law, not a national law) was unconstitutional.

US vs. Emerson (5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1999) is another court case where the 2nd Amendement was decided to be an individual right versus a state’s right.


I hope this helps a little. I am going to go wash now as I feel dirty.

Answer 10

Gun Control is meaningless, worthless, unconstitutional according to the Constitution it violates a citizens rights to own and possess and use firearms for protecting themselves, Family, Home, criminals, Government or Homeland or anyone else who would threaten, harm, kill, or enslave them through a corrupt, tyrannous Government*. Gun Control has no credibility or place in American Society*.... Defend your right to keep and bear arms in America or die while protecting that Right that was granted to us in our Constitution*...