As no one appears to be adding anything to the conversation, I shall.
My comments today will be focusing on the points raised by the opposition, and to rebut them.
"More guns makes the public safer."
We all know that the US has the highest public gun ownership in the world.
If the public having more guns meant that any societal benefit would be achieved, then the United States should be head and shoulders out in front in terms of that benefit being ranked. Followed by Yemen.
"Criminals would still murder, they don't listen to the law anyhow."
How would one define a criminal if they haven't offended yet?
If someone has not yet committed their crime, then they aren't criminals, and as such, still count as 'law abiding citizens'.
So we have a situation where it is too easy for someone with murderous intent to kill large numbers of people.
This entire point is illogical.
The essence of this argument is that criminals by definition are outside the law, and as such, making laws won't affect them.
This is ludicrous on the face of it.
We can extend this flawed logic further to drugs.
'Law abiding citizens' like us won't take drugs, only criminals will, so why not legalise it?
In summary: this point is saying that unless we can stop all murder, there's no point in doing anything at all.
"People will still murder with things other than guns, e.g. knives"
True, people always will murder, sadly. Human nature and all that.
But when two thirds of all murder in the US is done with a firearm, then it is a problem.
When eight thousand Americans are murdered each year with firearms (Four as many as died in Afghanistan), then it is an issue worth discussing.
The US has the thirteenth highest firearm related death rate in the world. It is an issue worth discussing.
Also, guns are designed to kill.
They are designed to be accurate, fast shooting, and deadly.
If the only firearm available was a musket, then I'm all for the Second Amendment.
Three shots a minute that are inaccurate at long range is fine by me.
"Guns make people safer at home"
There are three ways in which you can be killed with a gun.
Homicide, Suicide and by accident.
The risk rate of all three rises if guns are readily available, as studies show.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.fullhttp://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.fullhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000490Apparently 43 percent of gun owners who have kids don't lock up all guns securely.
That can't be good for the children, surely?
"What about New Zealand?"
This is a good example, like Switzerland, of a society that has access to semi automatic weapons etc. and has a low murder rate.
They both, however, have strict gun control in other areas like licensing etc.
In Switzerland, everyone serves in the military, and has training, and must be fit to serve, i.e. not felons or mentally ill.
Likewise, if you are a felon or mentally ill, then you can't get guns in NZ.
Intersting to note that both these countries' firearm related death rate is higher that Australia's, though.
"Mental health should be the focus"
Absolutely agree. It should be a focus.
But unless you can cure all mental illness, then there needs to be preventative measures elsewhere also.
For at least the time being, mental illness and the tendency to murder are both inevitabilities.
It is therefore reasonable to make the preventative measure the restriction of guns.
If the same measures that were done in Aus. were done in the US, had the same result observed, which there is no reason they shouldn't, then isn't that reasonable.
"Guns would help protect women"
6 times as many women were shot by husbands, partners and ex-partners than were murdered by a stranger.
"The Second Amendment means that I can have guns"
This argument make the assumption that the US Constitution is both unchangeable and perfect.
The US constitution is no more important than any other country's.
It can easily be changed.
The Fifteenth Amendment was written to free slaves, i.e. rid the slave holders of their purchased property.
So there could easily have been made the same arguments about the government taking people's slaves.
'People have always had slaves' 'My family has always had slaves'
'If I didn't have slaves, then I would feel threatened'
'I don't mistreat my slaves, so why should they get taken off me?'
Which brings me to the final opposition point;
"Why should the actions of others affect what I am able to do?"
This is what it comes down to.
After all the reasons and examples of other countries, this is what the debate boils down to.
'I dont misuse my guns, so why should I not have them?'
'Why should this one psycho shooting up a school mean that I cant have an assault rifle?'
True.
The actions of others don't mean that you will commit these actions.
But that is not how society works.
Maybe you can drive your car at 100 mph and not kill anyone.
But Mr. Johnson from down the road drove at 100 in a 50 zone and killed school children.
So now we can't.
Maybe you can take meth and not get addicted or murderous.
But Mr. Smith took some and strangled his kids before cutting his own wrists.
So now we can't.
Someone fell out of their fiftieth storey window, so now they don't open.
Someone drunk drove and died, so now we can't.
Someone killed 35 people in Australia with an assault rifle, so now we can't have them.
Maybe you won't kill anyone with your guns, but eight thousand Americans are murdered with guns each year.
Twice that number again kill themselves with guns.
That leaves twenty four thousand reasons each year for gun control.
Poll