Should firearms be available to civilians?

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikidebate logo.png Resource type: this resource is a wikidebate.

Meaning, should firearms of any kind be accessible to all people in a country?

Firearms should be available to civilians[edit]

  • Argument Argument Firearms enable people to defend their home and family from murderers, kidnappers and other threats.
  • Argument Argument Firearms enable civilians to defend themselves from their own government, if it ever turns into a police state.
    • Objection Objection Non-violent resistance can be as effective as violent resistance, and less lethal.
    • Objection Objection Household weapons are no real defense against an organized police state backed by the army.
      • Objection Objection Guerrilla warfare has historically seen success in civil wars against large armies.
        • These past wars are bad examples since modern weapon technologies have far outgrown the power of firearms. Guerrilla armies with firearms would stand no chance against drones, fighter jets, tanks, missiles and so on.

Firearms should not be available to civilians[edit]

  • Argument Argument Countries like Australia and Japan have seen their crime rates drop significantly after enacting such a law.
    • Objection Objection In Australia, though crime involving a firearm dropped drastically, most crime did not. Murder and armed robbery rates in Australia increased slightly after its extensive buy-back program in 1997. Japan has never enacted comparable legislation.
  • Argument Argument Firearms enable people to more easily become murderers, kidnappers, and pose other threats.

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]