Gun Control.. Arm yourself with more than just bullets.
So many of you will get into arguments vs people who dont want to just limit your Firearm ownership but take it away completely. I recently was involved in talking to the Brady Community via facebook, was defended against idiotic flaming attacks by the ADMIN on thier FB because I was a Gun Advocate that was open to dialogue about we could do to attempt to stop future problems, without stepping on rights.
I was recently banned from talking there anymore and blocked from contacting the Admin, so were others that were there with me. Politics are at play here and its time that you guys had the best information at your desposal...
We can cite numerous statistics, countries or views that support our claim that Gun control doesn't work and that Gun banning doesn't help, but lemme crush a myth or two.
Switzerland, it is widely believed that since most people in Switzerland own firearms that this is a great arguement against gun control because of thier low crime rate. This is not so.. most people in switzerland do NOT own thier firearms at home, they are kept at Depots and ranges. Dont use this argument it will back fire. The person you are debating, likely to be as we say your adversary, will cite Japan a nation with an extremely low crime rate. But Firearm control is little to at all responsible, Japan has been disarmed since around the 1500s. It is also widely believed that the reason Japan did not invade America is because of our Gun Culture. So if this occurs you should ask them to prove that crime rates were effectively improved due to the Gun Control Legislation that was passed. Israel, as with the others is a moot point. All these nations Israel and Switzerland are showing trends at less gun ownership as opposed to more gun ownership.
2nd Amendment, it is our right to keep and bear arms and is not to be infringed! However, the law says NOTHING about the right vs background checks, permits, or secondary legislature. And if you argue well it is'NOT TO BE INFRINGED' I want to remind you of the 1st amendment, and how often free speech is still denied in defimation, slander, and censurship. Use this as an argument but build off this, don't take it as scripture that could never change. It can and it could, though I hope and doubt it.
Crime in the UK is going up!That is true, in 4 districts it is going up, but in 3 it is going down, Citing this could put you in a position to depend on a rise in crime that is still less in contrast to ours. We however have a larger difference in Socio-economic desparity which overall has shown to lead to more crime. It is also true that more and more police officers are doing armed patrols, but not armed with pistols like our society but fully automatic machine guns. The only real true way to cite crime statistics in gun control cities is to cite them in contrast to neighbors and before/after the laws went into effect. This paper by a Harvard Law Professor is your bible, read it and use it. You will win everytime.
But DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL!! Yes they are, Gun Advocates have used this argument to attempt to defeat how making guns illegal will not make violence diminish. Though partially true, this is also partially a faulty argument. Drug use is a sickness, like all addictions once addicted the fear of being caught or prosecuted is less scary than the fear of withdraw, the pain, or the fear of potential side effects. To compare is to forget what drugs can do to a person, where guns do not have that effect. Its not a horrendous argument but argue the lack of ability of the government to completely prevent crime from drugs and selling drugs vs blaming the drugs.
BUT KNIVES! This is a good argument but you will find that your adversary will cite incidents like in china when a man attacked a class room and stabbed 20+ people. No one died, to be more effective dwell more on the argument for CRIME less on fatalities.
BUT WE SHOULD ARM TEACHERS! Not a bad argument either but it lacks compassion and consideration towards the people involved. Not all teachers want, nor would care to carry/own/operate let alone use a firearm to defend themselves. We cannot force it on them, so security or in school police would be more effective. Problem being, your adversary might cite that Columbine did have a security guard on the premise, who did infact engage one of the shooters. However, to combat this is simple the security guard wasn't inside the building at the time of the shooting he was in his car having lunch. He also did engage one of the shooters, and radio in the shots + position of the shooter. He could also have bought time for students which may have saved lives. As far as I am concerned this worked!
But Protection from the GOVERNMENT! This is a fundemental arguement we use against gun control. That we being so very young a nation, whose birth was wrought with stryfe against an imposed government are more paranoid of those impositions occuring again. The only problem is this isnt 1781, and we are less likely at being able to overthrow our current government if we felt the urge. Modern technology has actually made the most primary of our weapon, the gun, less of an advantage and more of a false sense of security. However, the US Military is made up of men and women that would NOT have their families killed like some countries if they defected. So mass defections would be likely in our country's armed forces, vs shooting civilians even if they are combatants. Also, our military hovers at about or around 1 million active personnel. Our nation sits at around 300 million with an estimated 55 million home owners owning firearms. Our military would struggle to quell rebellion without inflicting massive casualties including colateral damage. Not only that, examples of nations such as Libya and Syria who have both undergone serious revolution recently still show that if the nation is mad enough the people can and will overthrow thier government. And in Libya the outside powers of the world tend to side with the people.
BUT DRUNK DRIVERS!!This is a powerful argument that shows misplaced anger from individuals that are targeting guns out of fear, or disdain. It also shows how un-educated they are, the parable of the "splinter in your friends eye vs beam in your eye" is a good representation. Here in lies the problem, the biggest outcry vs gun violence is the intentional violence not as much the accidental damage. Drunk drivers have "accidents" that result in fatalities not purposeful acts. That changes the framework of the match up. That does not however invalidate the argument just makes it more challenging, think long and hard about this befoe you bring it up.
In all of these instances you need to research and use CITATIONs.. just saying it does not validate your viewpoint and without a source your facts could be wrong. I leave you charged with researching the information so that by reading it you learn enough to make you more than a match for any Firearm argument.
More to Come, at work writting this so expect pauses! LOL.
GUN CONTROL LAWS Ė Counterpoint
The so call Gun Control Laws try to regulate Human Actions by controlling inanimate objects without addressing the deeper problem, i.e., the mental health of the Mass Murder(s).
These laws have little effect on Mass Murders as we can look at recent events in China where 21 students were attacked by a knife wheeling Psycho-path intent on killing them. Additionally we can also look at Beslan, Russia where terrorists attacked a school as it was a soft target and in their minds children are a legitimate target.
Let's use another inanimate object as an example, the personal vehicle!
Every year Drunk Drivers used their vehicles as their weapon of choice. These Drunk Drivers have slaughtered an average of 30,000 individuals each year for the last ten (10) years! (NTSB Stats) That is 100 times as many as have died by the use of all rifles, not just the modern sporting rifle! (FBI Stats)
And yet no one is calling for a band on personal vehicles! Donít you think that inanimate objects like the personal vehicle that has caused so much death, maiming, and injuries should be regulated? We must stop these Drunk Drivers by not allowing them access to their weapon of choice!
But the personal vehicle is a tool and we need them!
No we have public transportation that I pay taxes for, so you can use public transportation! Plus that would benefit the environment!
So is a firearm any different than a personal vehicle? No it is the same! Just an inanimate object that EVIL people misuse just like the personal vehicle is misused by the Drunk Drivers!
However, note that Drunk Drivers kill 100 times more people than any rifle!
One additional point: Driving is a privilege granted by the state you live in and NOT a right; Owning a firearm is our RIGHT granted by the 2nd Amendment!