A) The debate about gun control and the second amendment started off with the moderator introducing the debate and the panelists. Then, each side read their opening statements. On the side for gun control, Ben Niggel read his side’s opening statement saying that automatic weapons are too dangerous to be in civilian hands and that they should be banned. On the side against gun control, Bobby Freeman read his side’s opening statement that said that the actions of the minority should not take away the majority’s rights. Then the panelists went on to discuss the safety of the majority, rights in contrast to freedoms, and the uses for automatic guns. The side for gun control argued that civilians do not need assault guns, and that banning them would reduce mass shootings, while the side against gun control said that people would still find a way to obtain guns and that banning them would not reduce crime rate. Throughout the debate, the panelists got very …show more content…
They are unnecessary for our country and they only make things more dangerous. An automatic gun is not needed for hunting or for sport. Their main purpose is to kill people. If a federal ban is placed on automatic guns, less shootings will take place, and that will make the ban worth it. Even if automatic guns are banned, people will still have access to all the other guns, so they can still hunt and protect themselves.There is no reason for someone to have access to a fully automatic machine gun. It’s just not necessary. a semi automat is just as good because it can still be used for self defense, but it is not made for killing many people at once. If there is a federal ban on automatic guns, them less mass shootings will happen and lives will be