Should firearms be available to civilians?

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, 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?

Arguments for[edit]

  • Firearms enable people to defend their home and family from murderers, kidnappers and other threats.
  • Firearms enable civilians to defend themselves from their own government, if it ever turns into a police state.
    • Non-violent resistance can be as effective as violent resistance, and less lethal.
    • Household weapons are no real defense against an organized police state backed by the army.
      • Guerrilla warfare has historically seen success in civil wars against large armies.

Arguments against[edit]

  • Countries like Australia and Japan have seen their crime rates drop significantly after enacting such a law.
    • 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.
  • Firearms enable people to more easily become murderers, kidnappers, and pose other threats.

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]