The Instigator
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
The Contender
Perkiles
Con (against)

Absolute right to gun ownership

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Perkiles has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 117 times Debate No: 96743
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

RonPaulConservative

Pro

Guns for all!
Perkiles

Con

I will assume that this is the first round.

Just so you know I am NOT for complete restriction of guns, just that we shouldn't have absolute rights to gun ownership.

First of all, any idiot could go to a gun store, buy an AK and go shoot up a school if there were absolute rights to gun ownership. However, with multiple background checks and only access to not-so-dangerous guns (Such as handguns), I believe gun deaths and costs associated with gun violence would decrease.

Besides, what is the point of any citizen to have the right to own a semi-automatic rifle? You might argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to own and carry guns as self-defense against a tyrannical government. What are the chances that a tyrannical government would take over the United States, or any powerful, democratic, well-governed first-world country? Very little. And even if the United States was taken over by a dictatorship, they are an asset to many, many international groups - the largest being the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - which are certain to do something if such a catastrophe happened. We also have formal diplomatic relations with all nations except for Bhutan, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Taiwan. Finally, if a totalitarian government (Think of something like Ingsoc in 1984 or North Korea) did take over the United States, that means that they had to fight the U.S military to do so. If the entire U.S armed forces, with their advanced machinery and technology, can't defeat this government, can your petty AK-7 do it?

You also might argue that a gun can be used in self-defense against burglars, rapists, and criminals in general. Well, what use would you need to have a semi-automatic rifle to defend yourself against a criminal? A handgun would do. Also, with absolute rights to gun ownership the criminal probably already has a semi-automatic tactical rifle with him, and he's prepared. If you have time to see the criminal, go get your gun, load it and fire, you're probably already dead.

You might also argue that guns can be used for hunting, and I agree. It's much easier to hunt with a gun than with a bow or crossbow. But why would you need such a high-tech gun to hunt some deer? A normal rifle, or even a handgun, would do.

Finally, guns are RARELY used in self-defense. You might think that the main reason for an absolute right to gun ownership would be for self-defense, but there you would be wrong. In 2010 alone out of 8,505 homicides only a measly 230 of them (That's less than 3%) were justifiable (Basically, a citizen using a firearm to kill a felon or criminal). Compared to the rest (Over 97%) being criminal homicides, out of every 36 deaths by guns only one would actually be killing a felon in self-defense.
Debate Round No. 1
RonPaulConservative

Pro

First of all, 8.3% of our population are felons, {1} so even if just anyone could get a gun with the absolute right to gun ownership, then there would be about 11 times as many armed law abiding citizens as there would be armed felons. Now, if someone tries to bring an AK-47 into a school, chances are someone is going to see him pulling a giant semi-automatic gun out of his car, this would allow the people inside the school to prepare and arm, they would also be better at defending the school since they are familiar with their surroundings and would also be garrisoned inside.

Second of all, 'tyrannical government' usually refers to our own government, not some foreign invading government. And the UN is actually one of the things that we would have to defend our nation against.

Third of all, if you're going up against a gang of 7, 8 people, then you'll never regret having too much ammunition. If the military has semi-automatics then we the people need semi-automatics, it's that simple, the people should always be armed at least to an equal extent that the government is.

{1}. https://www.libertariannews.org...

Perkiles

Con

This is Round 2. Good luck! :)

It is true that if someone came up to a school with a semi-automatic, the school would probably be notified and a lock down would be held. However, holding a lock down does not necessarily mean that the school has a high enough advantage to prevent the shooting. This was grimly shown in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, when Adam Lanza, armed with three semi-automatic firearms, killed twenty first-grade students, four teachers, the school principal, and the school psychologist at Sandy Hook Elementary. He killed his mother earlier and himself when the police arrived, bringing the total death count to 28.

Also, why would a totalitarian government arise from our own? A president could become corrupt, but without the approval of the Congress, he would not have any tyrannical power. Besides, a dictatorship rising from a democratic first-world country would obviously attract attention from other countries.

Third, the military and government already have much more advanced guns than citizens. The military had access to machine guns the 20th Century, and citizens still don't have access to fully automatic rifles. The government will most likely always have more advanced weaponry than the citizenry.

Finally, most adults (Even most gun owners) agree that there should be extensive background checks for private gun sales. 40% of gun sales are private party gun sales that do not require background checks: Someone who is mentally ill or has a criminal record (Even a felon) could get ahold of a gun. 90% of gun owners approve of laws that prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns. 79% of gun owners also approve of background checks for private party gun sales.
Debate Round No. 2
RonPaulConservative

Pro

"It is true that if someone came up to a school with a semi-automatic, the school would probably be notified and a lock down would be held. However, holding a lock down does not necessarily mean that the school has a high enough advantage to prevent the shooting. This was grimly shown in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, when Adam Lanza, armed with three semi-automatic firearms, killed twenty first-grade students, four teachers, the school principal, and the school psychologist at Sandy Hook Elementary. He killed his mother earlier and himself when the police arrived, bringing the total death count to 28."

Right- that's why the teachers and principle should own guns, because simply locking down the school and hiding unarmed in a dark room with a bunch of kids isn't going to be as effective as say- shooting the intruder.

"Also, why would a totalitarian government arise from our own? A president could become corrupt, but without the approval of the Congress, he would not have any tyrannical power. Besides, a dictatorship rising from a democratic first-world country would obviously attract attention from other countries."

Yeah because when Obama used an executive order to grant legal status to 5 million undocumented immigrants, congress stopped him. Oh no wait- they didn't? You do know that our own goveronment ALREADY IS tyrannical right? It's already here, immident domain, NSA spying, Obamacare, we are living under the tyranmny right now man.

"Third, the military and government already have much more advanced guns than citizens. The military had access to machine guns the 20th Century, and citizens still don't have access to fully automatic rifles. The government will most likely always have more advanced weaponry than the citizenry."

That's why we need the citizens to have absolute right to gun ownership.

"Finally, most adults (Even most gun owners) agree that there should be extensive background checks for private gun sales. 40% of gun sales are private party gun sales that do not require background checks: Someone who is mentally ill or has a criminal record (Even a felon) could get ahold of a gun. 90% of gun owners approve of laws that prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns. 79% of gun owners also approve of background checks for private party gun sales."

Almost no one is going to disagree that mentally ill people shouldn't own firearms, but no one sits down and wonders about the implications or specifics. For example- who decides who is mentally ill? The goveronment? It is very clear that this could be misused, and thus we sould base backround checks on a principle called "right to chose." Meaning, if the goveronment makes public records available to gun salesmen, and they as individuels bacround check someone, and find that they are a felon or a chitsophrinic maniac, then they have the right to chose not to sell him a gun.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
lets kill everyone!
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.