Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
Conservlogo.png

NOTE - PLEASE READ THE PREMISE SECTION BEFORE POSTING REPLIES - THANK YOU.

Contents

Premise

This is not a Yes/No type of debate, but it is also not an essay where only one viewpoint is being presented. The purpose in opening up this debate is to allow Conservapedia editors to express their views on what they consider an appropriate level of Gun Control in the U.S.A. to be in an ideal scenario. The responses will be grouped under three general categories for readability.


No Gun Control is best, since it's a Constitutional Right

Had Virginia Tech not had this for evil doers only] policy, then chances are some student would have had a gun and stopped Seung-Hui Cho before he carried out his massacred. It seems to me that most policy pundits and makers are confused about the obvious. There's far too much gun control already. --RickD 13:24, 11 December 2008 (EST)

However, one of the contributing factors to the VT massacre is that a disturbed individual like Cho was allowed to purchase weapons and ammunition without a background check. In this country you are free to make and sell food provided you get permits and pass food-safety inspections, and you can own & drive a car provided you are trained, licensed and register your vehicle - why should gun ownership be less restrictive when the consequences of letting a Seung-Hui Cho through the cracks are so tragic? If every VT student carried a gun that wouldn't stop a suicidal, insane gunman from trying to hurt or kil as many as he could before he got his death wish. --DinsdaleP 13:35, 11 December 2008 (EST)
A degranged, but motivated individual like Cho would simply find some other way. If there were more gun control, one situation would be for Cho to have bought a Car or Truck and driven it onto campus, running down unspecting students and killing them. A student with a gun could stop Cho in this and most other means of massacre. Students being allowed and encouraged to carry guns is obvious deterant. Half-baked, "feel-good" policies don't save lives or deter the criminally insane, lawful gun carrying citizens will either persuasively or forcefully.
Keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the insane is common sense, not a "feel-good" policy. As for the scenario you describe, if you think the average person could react to a speeding car mowing down innocents by pulling a gun from a backpack or case and aiming to take out the driver without injuring other before the car passes by, then you are counting on the average college student to be better in a crisis than Jack Bauer on '24'. You're right about the inventiveness of people determined to kill, though. You can't prevent everything, but reasonable regulation of something as lethal as guns respects both the Second Amendment and our common sense. --DinsdaleP 15:44, 11 December 2008 (EST)

The foundation of the United States of America is the constitution, and the constitution blatantly states in the second amendment that it is the right of every American to own guns, to say that Americans should not be allowed, or limited to buying guns is a violation of the constitution of the United States, the law is clearly obvious in this sense, and if an individual does not like what the constitution allows as freedom to its citizens, maybe they would be better off living in a much more tyrannical and authoritarian government. --User:atb 15:25, 13 July 2009

Some Gun Control is best for society

I believe that while gun ownership should be allowed, it's in the best interest of society to have that ownership be regulated to an appropriate degree. Anyone wishing to own a gun should take a brief safety course and pass a written and in-person safe-handling test (i.e. loading, unloading & securing), which is no more a burden than we impose for drivers. Just as with cars, there should be no restriction on how many you own, but all of them would need to be registered with the information updated every 4 years or so, and web technology can keep that overhead low. Background checks should be required of all people wishing to purchase guns, with no gun-show or private-sale exceptions, to ensure that people with violent felony records or those classified as unsuitable for mental-heath reasons are prohibited from purchasing them. Private citizens wishing to sell their guns could do so by having their local police run the check for them for a modest fee. Finally, certain types of weapons that have no reasonable hunting or self-defense purpose, like assault weapons, machine guns or armor-piercing (cop-killer) bullets, should be prohibited from sale. Collectively, these may seem too restrictive for some, but all they do is add enough reasonable safeguards to ensure that people who want to own guns for recreation and self-defense can do so, while keeping them out of the hands of those who have no legitimate purpose or interest. --DinsdaleP 13:06, 11 December 2008 (EST) I'm all for people owning guns, hunting rifles, pistols, historical in their homes. When it comes to automatic weapons I fell that you can own them but they must keept under lock at a gun range with a federal marshal thier to make sure every thing is safe and youi do not hurt you self or some one else because you do not know how to operate it. ps most guns used in crimes are not legaly owned! Imagine that criminals breaking the law on guns!

Gun Ownership by individuals should be banned

Personal tools