I'm doing a debate in school. I need info about gun control, like how if somone steals your guns and assaults a person with them your at fault and all. i've been to some sites on the net but thought to ask the pros! plz anyone give me some propositions i could use to pursuade my audience that gun control is the way to go and educating people today how to use them responsibly and keep them in safes away from kids is the way to go. and using background checks on gun customers etc....

Gun Control is [u]not[/u] the way to go, but I think I know what you mean.

try this:
[url]www.saf.org[/url]

Go to your libary or Barnes & Noble and find "Guns, Crime, and Freedom" by Wayne LaPierre.  I just did a report on the ineffectiveness of gun control and this book is the best pro-gun reference I have ever found!  It has everything from what the founding fathers meand with the second amendment to the debate over assault weapons.  It REALLY helps.

This is a hot topic these days among those who would and would not assault our Constitutional rights.  The NRA has a ton of info and up to date data on this and other subjects concerning guns and gun rights.

I just don't understand why we don't try to hold people responsible when somebody steals their car and destroys property or kills someone.  Or how about when somebody steals your money and buys a gun or illegal drugs with it.  According to this train of thought we should be held liable because we did not secure our vehicles or our money.....

Where does it stop?

Best place is "before stupidness gets started" but then it seems to be so rampant that it is hard to stem the tide....

[sniper]
The Sniper

OK, so most people are against it... why?

There are a lot of sound reasons but my top 2 are these:

1) Many fine Americans have given their lives to preserve this and other freedoms for the rest of us.

2) If we loose our right to keep and bear arms - with what will we preserve all of our other rights?

If we loose this one - we will loose them all.  It would just be a matter of time.  History teaches us that time and time again - but we still won't learn.

It was with available weapons and extreme dedication that these rights were established.  It will always take the same to protect them.

[sniper]
The Sniper

why against gun control?

Hmmm, well, it's one of my RIGHTS as in the BILL OF RIGHTS.  Like the Freedom of Speech, why would I want to give it up?

The courts have ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect YOU.  The public yes, you no. I know its confusing but thats the courts for you.  Basically, if you're unarmed in your house and a kook breaks in, shoots your dog, then your wife, and starts searching the house for you and your kids. Meanwhile you dial 911.  They say hold on, helps on the way. None arrives, you dial again, 'helps on the way'.  90 minutes later, your entire family is dead. You are bleeding to death.  The kook is gone. The cops arrive, finally, and you live, after months of surgury and recovery.  Guess what? There's no way in hell you can sue the police or the city or whatever.  The police have NO responsibility to protect you.  This responsibility is yours and yours ALONE! Now do you want a gun? Or do you want to have just a phone?

Just check out: [url]http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm[/url]

There are a lot of other good reasons against gun control, this is just one that came first to me.

So basically, if you're doing that debate for school. You can bring up the fact that personal protection is an individual responsibility, and not the governments.  As such, it behooves everyone to have the best tool for the job.  You may want to mention our right to pursue LIFE (as in pursuit of life liberty and happiness).  Ask: Does the gun control side really want to take away a citizen's best means of self-defense?  Are our wives and grandfolk to fend off armed gangbangers with their purses and canes?

gÖb£í/\/

This is an interesting question.  And how to approach it.

To my mind there is only one reason against further gun control.  And in fact, removal of some restrictions currently in place.  The 2nd Ammendment.  If you examine the writings of the people who wrote the constitution there is little doubt as to their intention.  They felt that POWER should remain in the hands of the PEOPLE - not the government.  There is no mention of hunting.  There is only mention of the power of guns preventing government abuses, and having a restraining effect on criminal intent.

I can only say that having walked the killing fields of Cambodia (sickening), and read extensively of the other mass murders by various governments around the world, it is clear the founding fathers had their heads screwed on right.  

Germany - a civilized people and culture for 100s of years, murders 6 million innocent people in 5 years.

Russia - a civilized people (before the commies) murders 20 million innocent people under Stalin.  If we could actually add the people starved to death in the Ukraine and other satellite nations this number could be much higher.  They starved because Stalin took too much of their grain - at the point of a gun.

China - a sort of civilized nation for centuries (only murdered in small amounts before) murders 60-80 million (who knows?) innocent people.  They also murdered people in Tibet and Laos.

Armenia - 1.5 million

Bangladesh - in 1971 was almost certainly well into seven figures.

Rwanda - 800,000

Indonesia - 1 million to 1.5 million killed in 1965-66.

Cambodia - 1975 thru 1980 more than 2 million.  Pikers, but then the entire population of Cambodia is only 12 million today.

In every case, the people were unarmed.  Sometimes simply because of lack of resources (I doubt the average Cambodian can afford an AK47 even now).  In other cases, the governments first disarmed the populace under the guise of "safety".  Or under no guise at all.

People will respond with "oh, it won't happen HERE".  Why not?  It hasn't in 200 years while we have weapons.  Why test it?  

Yes, our nation has a violent streak.  We have violent criminals that prey on each other and us, to the tune of some 30,000 gun deaths a year. Even IF these were all preventable by banning certain types of guns or all guns, I would pass.  Never, EVER, shall I accept the concept that only the government shall have the means of defense.  Or in the above cases - offense.

On a second and less important note, gun controls will probably have a negative effect versus the desired reduction in deaths.  If you wish to pursue that argument, go to the FBI uniform crime stats and discover who is actually getting killed and how.  After you subtract suicides  you have a much lower number to deal with.  And we record both bad (criminal or nut kills innocents) with good (citizen or cop kills scum that needed killing).  The GOOD shootings (civilians fighting back) will drop, and the criminals will be free to wreak havoc.  But you'll have to examine that argument yourself.

James

More and more gun control in general and really the attacks on the second amendment are what really scare me.

You really have to be coming form an anti-gun starting point to say that the 2nd really applies only to states' militia(National Guard- So Dan Qualye gets a gun?).  I've looked at the constitution and the bill of rights, and when it means to say that the states have the right in relation to the Federal government, it will say "the state".  The arguement that the the 2nd in someway is meant to restrict the rights to something, like only the states should have access to guns, flies in the spirit of the document since the the other 9 in the bill of rights are meant to protect freedoms.  The whole "hunting rifle" arguement is so silly it doesn't deserve mentioning.

I think the most evil feature of the march to ban firearms is the implied irrelevance of the 2nd by the anti-gun forces.  It seems like they are really saying, "We'll yes, the gun thing is in there, but it doesn't really apply today.  We have grown past that."  When you start to essentially modify the constitution mearly for short term problem solving, you start to slide down a slippery slope.

Wouldn't it be horrible if the 1st and the Freedom of Speech came under attack by some nut cases in the Senate wanting to restrict Free Speech in elections or maybe even demand cheap TV time for their campaigns.  When you make an emotional arguement based on a belief that something must be done, there is little that people are not willing to forsake for the sake of the children or "reform".

To me at least, it is not so much the guns now, it is the rest of my property up for grabs and the continued blurring of the state and the individual in the future.

We have enough gun control and to little enforcement of current gun control laws. I could go on about why our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms. A government can only become oppressive after it disarms its citizens. The history of the world will bear this out. No government or civilization has ever lasted forever on this earth. Change is the only constant in this world. What makes any body think ours will be different.

We have enough gun control and to little enforcement of current gun control laws. I could go on about why our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms. [A government can only become oppressive after it disarms its citizens.] The history of the world will bear this out. No government or civilization has ever lasted forever on this earth. Change is the only constant in this world. What makes any body think ours will be different.