So i have another forum I visit where I am debating teh usefulness of the second amendment and I asked for his true points on why he doesnt like it.
Id like some help on this one to win it in one go.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me
We can agree to disagree (ala the first amendment Wink ) about the constitution. The second amendment is there to give the people genuine power if it comes down to it. The UK removed people's right to bare arms and homicide actually increased. If it's not a gun, it's some other thing.
For sake of an interesting conversation, what is your stance on how the 2nd does more harm than good?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by him
The UK's homicide rate didn't go up. They actually have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
The reason is that:
1. With a gun in the house the chance of a suicide in the house rises by 500% over a house without a gun in it
2. 80% of homicides are commited by guns that were legally registered and stolen.
3. If you have a gun in your house, the person it is most likely to kill is the person who owns it.
4. With less access to guns will come a compounded problem in buying a gun. Off the street a 9mm pistol is cheaper than buying one in a shop since the overhead is generally nill, seeing as it was stolen. If there is no longer this source of free weaponry the weapons then available will rise in cost, and therefore fewer people will be buying unlicensed weapons due to economy and that will result in fewer gun related homicides.
I feel that no one outside of the military or police agencies should be allowed to carry or even own arms. I imagine there are some people that there could be exceptions to. One would be retired professional soldiers. No one would ever be able to doubt their knowledge of gun safety and their mental where-with-all around guns.
|
I know #3 was falsified by including suicides into the firearms used against their owners numbers, but Id like to slam this out of the park.