The Instigator
NukelarApothecary
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ConserativeDemocrat
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

"Assault Rifles" (AR-15's Legality)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
NukelarApothecary
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 437 times Debate No: 94386
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

NukelarApothecary

Pro

I believe you have every right to own an AR-15. If someone thinks you shouldn't have that right that the constitution protects, they are simply unamerican, and uneducated. If you don't think anyone should own that gun, then don't own that gun. Nobody is forcing you to own a weapon. I believe personally that it is my right to own guns that I'd like to own. I believe we need to read the constitution a little closer. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." yes. That does say a well regulated militia, but do you see that tiny little comma in between that and "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." That doesn't say "the right of the people in the militia" and it doesn't say "the right of the people who are police" and it doesn't say "the right of the people in the military" it says "the right of the people" the American people. These assault weapons such as the AR-15 are commonly misrepresented. You are told that an AR-15 cannot be used for hunting, when the standard AR-15 fires .223 and .308 rounds, rounds used mainly for hunting game, such as deer. if you believe in gun control, you are being lied to.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

This is my argument from another debate:

First, I will start with the fact that more gun laws lowers gun violence. First, I will start in the US. States that have more fun laws, like background checks, difficulties in getting concealed carry permits and the like, have lower gun laws then states with loose gun laws. [1] Now let's look at other countries. First, look at Japan. They have extremely strict gun laws, and they banned all guns minus air rifles and shotguns. Their gun murder rate is 0.0 for every 100,000 people. They only had 11 gun murders in 2011; the most recent data. [2] Now let's look at Canada. They have strict gun laws. Their gun gun murder rate is .38 per 100,000 people, which is quite low. Now let's look at the US. The U.S. has some of the weakest gun laws in the developed world. Their gun murder rate is 3.43 per 100,000 people. [4] So this is strong evidence that more gun control equals less gun crime.

Now I will address your argument. Here is the full second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Notice the, "... Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Part. This only gives the right to bear arms to part of a militia needed to defend the country. We don't need militias to defend our country, because we have a military. So not everyone gets the right to bear arms. Also, the second amendment says, "Arms." Arms doesn't only refer to firearms. If you restrict firearms, people can still have knifes, bats, crossbows and so on. Even if we interpret the second amendment to say, "Everyone can bear arms", you don't need a firearm, you can bear different arms. Finally, the second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload. Our guns include long range, high accuracy, fast RoF, and with 100 round clips. As the technology changes, the laws regarding tech need to change too.

Finally, even if the second amendment of the constitution was, "We the people have the right to keep and bear arms", restrictions like background checks, mental health checks, bans on certain guns, and so on will not hurt law- abiding citizens' chances to get a gun, only potentially bad people's chances, which is good. Do we really want convicted felons to get guns? No.

Now onto your argument.

" If you don't think anyone should own that gun, then don't own that gun. Nobody is forcing you to own a weapon."
- Yes, but the effects of people owning guns can be felt when you get shot.

"yes. That does say a well regulated militia, but do you see that tiny little comma in between that and "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." That doesn't say "the right of the people in the militia" and it doesn't say "the right of the people who are police" and it doesn't say "the right of the people in the military" it says "the right of the people" the American people."
- Can you prove what that comma means? Unless you can't, your argument is useless. The comma was mearly a grammatical comma. Anyway, this amendment is about technology. Tech changes over time. And circumstances change too. I would fully support this amendment in the 1700s. Why? Becaus the only guns were inaccurate, slow-to-reload, one shot muskets. And their was no strong military to stop attacks, so it makes sense that we need the people to be armed. But now we have the strongest military in the world, and our guns have hundred-round clips, that can be reloaded within 5 seconds, and are accurate for hundreds of yards. This means that the amendment is outdated, and needs updating. An example? Imagine if all the laws around drones are never changed again. In 20 years, when the public has access to drones with LMGs, bombs, and spy cameras on them, you would think the law needs an update. This is the same for guns.

Your hunting argument is one I never heard before. Can you provide a link that will make this rebuttal make sense?

"If you believe in gun control, you are being lied to."
- As I have shown in this debate, that is not the case.

Some people might attack me for my arguments, as they are mostly focused on gun control in general. However, my opponent takes many jabs at gun control throughout, and he makes no laws regarding kritkiks, so my arguments are valid.

I have shown that gun laws are complely legal and help reduce gun crimes. I await my opponent's response.

[1] https://img.njdc.com......
[2] http://www.gunpolicy.org......
[3] http://www.gunpolicy.org......
[4] http://www.gunpolicy.org......
Debate Round No. 1
NukelarApothecary

Pro

The statement of "gun laws lower gun violence" is extremely debatable, because in places like Chicago, with some of the highest gun violence statistics in the country, also have the highest gun violence rates. With Australia and Canada, their populations are much lower than ours, so their per 100,000 people will be lower almost no matter what. Australia has a population of around 24 million people, Canada has a population of 35 Million, while we have 318.9 million people. It's obvious why their numbers are lower. IF you adjust those statistics for an equal population, America is much closer than you'd think, as displayed by this video.

https://www.youtube.com...

along with the sources Mr. Crowder used.
http://www.mintpressnews.com...
http://usconservatives.about.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.insightcrime.org...
(there are quite a few more sources, it's in the link in the description of the video.)

When adjusted, America is actually

Now about your statement about my statement about the constitution. You stated " Can you prove what that comma means? Unless you can't, your argument is useless. The comma was merely a grammatical comma."

Literally every single word and Punctuation of the constitution was debated ferociously. The founding fathers were thinking of a free country, and it's impossible to have a free country that says only some of its people can bear arms, and I can very well assure you that the comma wasn't put there purely for grammatical reasons. "the comma was merely grammatical" Every single word of every single writing is grammatical. It's the same with commas. That comma, grammatically, has a meaning. it's not there to make you pause while you speak, it's there to separate the first and second part of the amendment.

"Finally, the second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload."
Here are some counterexamples that contradict that statement; The Puckle gun, Pepperbox revolvers, The Belton Flintlock (which could fire up to 20 rounds in 5 seconds, meaning it has a higher rate of fire than some guns today), The Giradoni Rifle, with a 22 round magazine that could fire in 30 seconds. In conclusion, no, muskets were not the only guns around when the second amendment was written.
http://www.truthrevolt.org...
https://www.quora.com...

" Also, the second amendment says, "Arms." Arms doesn't only refer to firearms. If you restrict firearms, people can still have knives, bats, crossbows and so on. Even if we interpret the second amendment to say, "Everyone can bear arms", you don't need a firearm, you can bear different arms."

No, it doesn't exclusively refer to firearms, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to infringe on my right to bear arms in general. Just because I can bear a knife instead of a gun, doesn't mean I should have to.

But now we have the strongest military in the world, and our guns have hundred-round clips, that can be reloaded within 5 seconds, and are accurate for hundreds of yards. This means that the amendment is outdated, and needs updating.

This assumes the shooter is a skilled and militarily trained weapons expert. The gun isn't accurate for hundreds of yards, the person behind it is.

as for the AR-15 Hunting portion
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com...
http://www.ammoforsale.com...
http://www.m4carbine.net...

.223 and .308/5.56mm NATO shells are the standard ammunition for an AR-15. They are cleared for deer and other types of hunting. The caliber will not taint the meat, or destroy the animal. It is a clean kill.

I'm not going to attack you for your arguments because that's highly unprofessional and childish. This is a site for debate, not personal attacks.

Also I'm glad to see that you know what you're talking about, I don't end up with people like that a lot.

lastly, please watch the videos I provided, they display my point of view almost perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

If you need clarifying on any of my points, those will help too. Sorry if he implies you're an idiot, but that's him, not me.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

Honestly, that was the fastest response I have ever seen.

"The statement of "gun laws lower gun violence" is extremely debatable, because in places like Chicago, with some of the highest gun violence statistics in the country, also have the highest gun violence rates."
- Alright, I know what you mean. However, you aren't looking at the bigger picture. A large amount of guns in Chicago come from cities and counties without strict gun restrictions [1]. For example, of the 50,000 guns the police seized, 60% came from Indiana. So you can't place blame on Chicago's gun laws.

"That comma, grammatically, has a meaning. it's not there to make you pause while you speak, it's there to separate the first and second part of the amendment."
- Source please. Plus, assuming this was true, what was the point of the first clause? If what you say is true, why does that first clause exist at all? If you take the second amendment my way, it makes sense. It is establishing the right for militias to carry guns.

"Finally, the second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload."
"Here are some counterexamples that contradict that statement; The Puckle gun, Pepperbox revolvers, The Belton Flintlock (which could fire up to 20 rounds in 5 seconds, meaning it has a higher rate of fire than some guns today), The Giradoni Rifle, with a 22 round magazine that could fire in 30 seconds. In conclusion, no, muskets were not the only guns around when the second amendment was written."
- I checked your sources, and neither of them help you much. Your first one has no links or sources, just Crowder's word, and he is heavily biased, so I don't trust him. Your second source was better. It linked to a rifle with around 20 shots. However, according to your source, it needed 1500 hand pumps to get it ready to fire, it was easily broken, it was hard to manufacture, and the soldier needs to be heavily trained to use it. This proves my point even more. The 19th century counterpart of a modern rifle is nowhere near its' effectiveness. So my point about technology still stands.

"Just because I can bear a knife instead of a gun, doesn't mean I shouldn't have to."
- Why? Can you back this assertion up?

As for your point about modern technology, do you really need to be trained in order to shoot people? All you need to know is how to put more bullets in it and what end the bullets come out in. That is why we have so many shootings. Because guns are easily accessed, and you can easily use them. Oh, and source please.

You have not created a sufficient response to this argument: The guns and time around when the second amendment was written were different then now. They needed militias then. We have an army now. Most guns were 1 shot muskets. Not now.

Now for the big one. Your point about other country's gun control.

"With Australia and Canada, their populations are much lower than ours, so their per 100,000 people will be lower almost no matter what. Australia has a population of around 24 million people, Canada has a population of 35 Million, while we have 318.9 million people. It's obvious why their numbers are lower."
- Sorry, but this is nonsense. The rate per 100,000 is just that, a rate. Rates are controled for population. What you are thinking of is a count, which isn't controled for population. This is a misunderstanding of how this data was gathered. If you want another example, look at the States. In general, the states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest crime data. And, the 5 states with the highest rates have very loose gun laws, while the 5 states with the lowest gun murder rates have stricter gun laws. Here is a chart you should check out emphasizing my point: https://img.njdc.com... .Also, if we take rates your way, why is New York, a state with tons of people, have a lower gun murder rate then Alaska, which has almost no one in it?

".223 and .308/5.56mm NATO shells are the standard ammunition for an AR-15. They are cleared for deer and other types of hunting. The caliber will not taint the meat, or destroy the animal. It is a clean kill."
- Alright, but people can use other guns to hunt. I value people's lives more then the easiness to hunt.

I will throw some more fuel on the fire. Suicide. A study done by Harvard University found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had more suicides, and states with fewer guns had fewer suicides. 30,000 people take their lives each year [2]. Passing gun laws can bring that number down.

Now onto accidental deaths. Again, more guns equals more accidental deaths, fewer guns equals less accidental deaths. This makes sense, but if we make it harder to get guns, and we require better security, we can save hundreds of lives per year. In fact, a study done by the government found that 31% of accidental shootings could of been prevented if we required loading indicators and child-proof locks [3].

I will now quickly rebut 2 arguments that my opponent might make.

First, carrying guns on you won't reduce the risk of you being shot in an assault. It increases it. From one of my debates:
A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault then people who don't carry guns [4].

Second:
When it is easier for people to carry firearms, it is more likely for criminals to carry guns. 75% of convicted felons carried guns because they fear their victims could be carrying guns. What does this mean? Victims who are not carrying could be at risk of being shot because of others. [5]

So to conclude, I would like my opponent to rebut my statements. My case is simple: Passing gun laws reduces crime, suicide, and accidental deaths. Good luck.

Sources:
[1] http://america.aljazeera.com...
[2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
[3] http://smartgunlaws.org...
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[5] https://www.ncjrs.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
NukelarApothecary

Pro

I'm seriously reconsidering what I said about knowing what you're talking about, I provided sources for pretty much every word I typed and you just deny that. You say that one of the people I linked you to is biased, and you won't trust him, even though he provdied factual evidence to support his claims, as did I. You counter my arguement by saying "can you prove this?" When rebutting me, at least stick to using your side of the case to counter arguements, not just asking if I can prove my claims, even though I've provided sources that back my claims quite effectively.

Now, onto your arguement.

Firstly, you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of gun laws. Chicago has strict gun laws, and that means you can't bring guns into the city that don't fit the requirements. It doesn't mean you can just buy a gun somewhere else and bring it back. Your statistic just proves that people will bring guns that don't fit the laws into areas with strict control and commit crime with them anyways. The guns that were siezed by the police were not from law-abiding citizens, they were from illegal gun smugglers. I do not see the point of your statistic, as it rebuts itself.
http://www.nytimes.com...

The constitution was written for the people, it wasn't written for the states, it wasn't written for militias. It was written so that we as a people had a clear understanding of what rights the government cannot take away from us, and what our country stood for. The rebuttal you have provided to my point is complete nonsense. I actually did provide a source at the bottom of my previous arguement, proving that you did not even check my sources. Look at my sources and then rebut that Point please.

As I said earlier, just because M.r Crowder is biased doesn't mean the facts he provides are false. The rebuttal you provided countered my point in saying it wasn't all that effective, but you completely disregarded the point of that whole section of writing, which was that the technology existed, so the founding fathers most definetly knew that there was more than one shot rifles being developed. They were not fools, they could see that there was advancements being made in technology. Hell, president Madison protected a citizen ships right to have cannons on it, in a time when cannons served almost purely military purposes.

"Just because I can bear a knife instead of a gun, doesn't mean I shouldn't have to."
- Why? Can you back this assertion up?

You got a laugh out of me with that one. You're asking for me to prove the second amendment exists.

The only people who can put out a maximum rate of fire accurately are militarily trained and proficient shooters. A civilian cannot grab a gun and ,without training, put out a maximum ROF with accuracy. I love how you asked me for a source on that point, and then told me something that actually needs backing (i.e. That is why we have so many shootings. Because guns are easily accessed, and you can easily use them)
Don't ask me to prove common sense. I can't play football well just because I have a pigskin, but claiming that easily accessed weapons lead to more shootings is something that needs to be backed with statistics.

As for your rebuttal to my main point, rates per 100,000 are, like you said, rates. They aren't going to be equal for countries with 10% of the population of us. Had you watched the Crowder video, or actually looked at my sources, you would have understood that.

Now onto your added fuel, which I will provide sources for, becuase the rest of this arguement already was sourced, you just ignored them because the provider of the facts was biased, which is the point. I wouldn't be on their side if I disagreed with them, and I'm obviously going to be biased towards my side, as are you.

"Guns cause more suicide" is complete nonsense. Guns don't cause suicide. Guns don't bully you. Guns don't push you over a mental line. Guns are an effective tool in ending your life, but so are cars, toasters, prescription drugs, knives, blunt weapons, hands, water, all things we have rights to. Maybe instead of gun control we need a means of not letting people get to the point of wanting to end their lives, because if they want to kill themselves, they don't need guns.
https://www.thetrace.org...
That says that keeping a gun safely stored decreases suicide rate, so like i Said, keep your guns safe, and you'll save lives.

"More guns cause more accidental deaths" that's not guns, that's a lack of common sense, and lack of thought of the safety of others. A gun has a safety, we have trigger locks, we have gun safes. It's when stupid people do stupid things with guns that gets people killed, not just having a gun. It's having a gun, and not knowing how to be safe with it. Stupid things like "don't give your kid a gun" and "put your guns in a safe" and "never point the gun at yourself or others." Because those things are things you are told at gun safety training courses, it's when idiots don't follow those rules that causes accidental deaths, not guns.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...
http://www.cnsnews.com...
https://www.aei.org...
http://americangunfacts.com...
http://ijr.com...

These sources pertain to both parts of this portion of the rebuttal.

While you are more likely to be shot in the occurrance of a shooting,you are also far less likely to be involved in a shooting or violent crime if you carry. A study found that you are far likely to be engaged by someone with criminal intent if you have a firearm on you.
https://www.gunowners.org...
The people are far more effective than the police, actually. The police error rate is 11% while it's 2% with citizens in self defense.

And no, I don't think all gun laws are bad. I fully support project exile, which is a gun law that liberals hate. Basically if you are caught with a gun illegally, you get a much more severe sentence, and has proven to be effective in the several states it was employed in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

We don't need to take away guns for law abiding citizens, we need to make sure those citizens can protect themselves, and make the punishment worse for people who use firearms incorrectly.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

"Firstly, you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of gun laws. Chicago has strict gun laws, and that means you can't bring guns into the city that don't fit the requirements. It doesn't mean you can just buy a gun somewhere else and bring it back. Your statistic just proves that people will bring guns that don't fit the laws into areas with strict control and commit crime with them anyways. The guns that were siezed by the police were not from law-abiding citizens, they were from illegal gun smugglers. I do not see the point of your statistic, as it rebuts itself."
- So I win this point. This was originally a rebuttal to my point about gun laws and how they reduce crime. I read through your source, and it says guns are bought where gun control is lesser. In other words, if the whole nation had strict gun laws, this trade would stop and it would be harder to get a gun in Chicago. And this really isn't a rebuttal. No matter how strict gun laws are, it will be near impossible to stop illegal guns from coming in. But, most illegal guns come from states with weak gun laws, like Indiana. Your own source says this. Obviously, if Indiana passed stronger gun laws, then this trade would go down, and Chicago would have less gun crime.

"The constitution was written for the people, it wasn't written for the states, it wasn't written for militias. It was written so that we as a people had a clear understanding of what rights the government cannot take away from us, and what our country stood for. The rebuttal you have provided to my point is complete nonsense. I actually did provide a source at the bottom of my previous arguement, proving that you did not even check my sources. Look at my sources and then rebut that Point please."
- I saw no sources to back up anything. I definitely looked at your sources. You notice that in my rebuttal, where I specially mention I read your sources. Maybe you didn't read my argument. Also, you are supposed to make the argument. Your source shows where you get the data, or where you get the argument, from. You can't just say, "This is my argument -link to another video by someone else." So as far as I'm concerned, I win this point too, as you are unable to prove how this comma proves anything. And, you didn't respond to my question. What is the point of the, "Well regulated militia" part then?

Please listen to this point. Passing more gun laws won't violate any interpretation of the second amendment. You can still buy guns. Only bad people can't buy guns. Law abiding citizens can still bear arms. My proof of this is the States. States with more gun control have fewer murders. Link in earlier argument.

"As I said earlier, just because M.r Crowder is biased doesn't mean the facts he provides are false."
- No, I'm saying this because in his article, he has no sources. So why should I believe what he says?

"The rebuttal you provided countered my point in saying it wasn't all that effective, but you completely disregarded the point of that whole section of writing, which was that the technology existed, so the founding fathers most definetly knew that there was more than one shot rifles being developed. They were not fools, they could see that there was advancements being made in technology.
- The only gun you actually showed was the Girandoni Air Rifle, in service in Europe. How do you know the founding fathers knew about it? The constitution was written in 1787. How do you know that at that time, the founding fathers knew about that technology. Even if they did, take into account its' effectiveness and the time the second amendment was written. First, the time. This was at a time when their were not gangs and tons of gun crime. This was when there was no strong US army, and the founding fathers knew that the people would need to be armed to protect the nation. Plus, this gun can't of been in many hands, so the fathers probably didn't care about it. And again, this gun was horribly ineffective, as your own source points out. Like it needs 1500 pumps just to shoot a few rounds at a very low velocity. This is the kind of repeating gun that existed. Not the modern rifles we have today. So my point still stands. As technology improves, laws need to catch up. This is why I provided the example of drones to back up my claim.

Hell, president Madison protected a citizen ships right to have cannons on it, in a time when cannons served purely a military purpose."
- Yes, I checked your source, and it said Madison allowed the ship to have cannons FOR a military purpose: attacking enemy shipping. We are not in a war. We don't need private ships with missles, we have a navy for that. This is a reoccurring theme for this debate. We don't need private citizens to be armed. We have others to protect them. We have the strongest military in the world, so the people don't need to be armed in the way the founding fathers intended.

"You got a laugh out of me with that one. You're asking for me to prove the second amendment exists."
- My point is that you can still bear arms, regardless of whether guns are banned. The second amendment mentions "Arms". Not firearms, but arms. If you want to play semantics, I can too. Even with your interpretation, it only gives the right to bear arms. So if you restrict guns, which doesn't even violate the second amendment, people can still bear arms. Just not firearms.

"The only people who can put out a maximum rate of fire accurately are militarily trained and proficient shooters. A civilian cannot grab a gun and ,without training, put out a maximum ROF with accuracy. I love how you asked me for a source."
- Who says you need to put out max RPS? I've shot guns before. I'm no military trained personnel. But do I need to be? The gun I shot was easy to reload, and it has little recoil. I knew how to reload, aim, and fire it. Do I need to know anything else? And, this is such a lackluster rebuttal. Anyone can shoot guns and be deadly with them. Look at all these mass shootings. Few had military training. But do they need them? My point was that to use the old guns, you need a bunch of gunpowder, and to be trained in reloading it [1]. Not today.

"As for your rebuttal to my main point, rates per 100,000 are, like you said, rates. They aren't going to be equal for countries with 10% of the population of us. Had you watched the Crowder video, or actually looked at my sources, you would have understood that."
- Oh my god. Do you understand how rates work? First, you have to post the argument, not steal from someone else. Secondly, you ignored my second example, of states. By your logic, why does New York, a state with tons of people have a lower gun murder rate then Alaska? New York has more people, so why is its' rate lower (source above)? Now for some math. In 2011, Japan had 11 gun murders, and it is around 1/3 of the US population. So multiply the murders by 3, and you get 33 gun murders for an equivalent population. The rate is still the same. The U.S. had over 8500 gun murders in 2011. You can see why the Japan rate is so much lower. Because per capita, they have fewer gun murders. What you are thinking of is a count, which isn't controled for population like rates are. The way they find rates is simple. They take the population, divide it by 100,000, and then divide the amount of gun homicides by the quotient. This is controlling for population. Here is a link explaining what rates are: https://www.stats.indiana.edu... Please learn what rates are before you make these claims.

"They aren't going to be equal for countries with 10% of the population of us."
- Proof?

"Had you watched the Crowder video, or actually looked at my sources, you would have understood that."
- If he doesn't understand how rates work, then your sources are even worse.

"Now onto your added fuel, which I will provide sources for, becuase the rest of this arguement already was sourced, you just ignored them because the provider of the facts was biased, which is the point. I wouldn't be on their side if I disagreed with them, and I'm obviously going to be biased towards my side, as are you."
- No. I rejected one of your sources as your source had no proof, and only the author's say so. That is why I rejected it.

"Guns cause more suicide" is complete nonsense. Guns don't cause suicide. Guns don't bully you. Guns don't push you over a mental line. Guns are an effective tool in ending your life, but so are cars, toasters, prescription drugs, knives, blunt weapons, hands, water, all things we have rights to. Maybe instead of gun control we need a means of not letting people get to the point of wanting to end their lives, because if they want to kill themselves, they don't need guns.
- Did you even read my point? I provided a study showing that states with more guns have higher suicide rates, and vice versa. You didn't rebut that. I win this point.

I'm low on characters, so I'm not posting your next argument.

My point is that if you require safety devices, gun safes, and training courses to buy a gun, this will go down.

"While you are more likely to be shot in the occurrance of a shooting,you are also far less likely to be involved in a shooting or violent crime if you carry. A study found that you are far likely to be engaged by someone with criminal intent if you have a firearm on you."
- This is actually a bad thing. More criminals carry guns because more people carry guns. So stop concealed carry.

In conclusion, I have shown that gun control reduces crime. My opponent has been unable to rebut this point. It is constitutional, and even if it wasn't, laws concerning tech need updating as tech updates too. Good luck!

Sources in comments.
Debate Round No. 3
NukelarApothecary

Pro

- So I win this point. This was originally a rebuttal to my point about gun laws and how they reduce crime. I read through your source, and it says guns are bought where gun control is lesser. In other words, if the whole nation had strict gun laws, this trade would stop and it would be harder to get a gun in Chicago. And this really isn't a rebuttal. No matter how strict gun laws are, it will be near impossible to stop illegal guns from coming in. But, most illegal guns come from states with weak gun laws, like Indiana. Your own source says this. Obviously, if Indiana passed stronger gun laws, then this trade would go down, and Chicago would have less gun crime.

That isn't how this works. If you put up gun control in Indiana people are going to smuggle guns in from other states, if the whole nation gets gun control smugglers will get them in from out of the country. It's the same with drugs, they are illegal in all states, so smugglers smuggle them in from out of the country. (and just a tip, don't say you won a point. That's not for you to decide.)

- I saw no sources to back up anything. I definitely looked at your sources. You notice that in my rebuttal, where I specially mention I read your sources. Maybe you didn't read my argument. Also, you are supposed to make the argument. Your source shows where you get the data, or where you get the argument, from. You can't just say, "This is my argument -link to another video by someone else." So as far as I'm concerned, I win this point too, as you are unable to prove how this comma proves anything. And, you didn't respond to my question. What is the point of the, "Well regulated militia" part then?

A.) the constitution is my source, the very first words were "we the people" not "we the states" or "we the militia" or "we the government"
B.)like I said in the comments, there are too many sources to link them, so I post the video because it contains all of the links.
C.)you didn't disprove my statement about the comma.
D.)the point of the well-regulated militia part is to establish that arms are to be used in a well-regulated militia, but the comma is there to separate that from "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." what other reason is there for the comma? I could send you a source telling you the meaning of a comma, but you should already know a comma is to separate two parts of a sentence.

Please listen to this point. Passing more gun laws won't violate any interpretation of the second amendment. You can still buy guns. Only bad people can't buy guns. Law abiding citizens can still bear arms. My proof of this is the States. States with more gun control have fewer murders. The link is in earlier argument.

gun laws do affect law abiding citizens when you say what guns they can and cannot own, just because that's the gun a criminal owned. Non-restrictive gun laws aren't the issue, it's banning certain guns. I'd agree that fully-automatic weapons should not be in civilians hands, but a semi-automatic self-defense, hunting, and sporting gun should not be illegal.(the AR-15)

"As I said earlier, just because M.r Crowder is biased doesn't mean the facts he provides are false."
- No, I'm saying this because, in his article, he has no sources. So why should I believe what he says?

If you had the capacity to look on the page a little, you would have found the sources.

- The only gun you actually showed was the Girandoni Air Rifle, in service in Europe. How do you know the founding fathers knew about it? The constitution was written in 1787. How do you know that at that time, the founding fathers knew about that technology? Even if they did, take into account its' effectiveness and the time the second amendment was written. First, the time. This was at a time when there were not gangs and tons of gun crime. This was when there was no strong US army, and the founding fathers knew that the people would need to be armed to protect the nation. Plus, this gun can't of been in many hands, so the fathers probably didn't care about it. And again, this gun was horribly ineffective, as your own source points out. Like it needs 1500 pumps just to shoot a few rounds at a very low velocity. This is the kind of repeating gun that existed. Not the modern rifles we have today. So my point still stands. As technology improves, laws need to catch up. This is why I provided the example of drones to back up my claim.

A.) I showed at least 3 more weapons that were high-capacity firearms.
B.)http://www.redstate.com...
They knew very well that the Giradoni rifle existed, and if I remember correctly, George Washinton tried to order multi-shot rifles, but they were too expensive. I have no source to back up this claim presently, so feel free to ignore that part.
C.)you provided the example that drones with weaponry would require renewing of laws, and I agree, but drones with weaponry are military only already, meanwhile these firearms are perfectly safe for civilian use. They even fire the same ammunition as most hunting rifles and are commonly used for hunting.
D.) you declared you won a point again. that's not your decision.

Hell, president Madison protected a citizen ship's right to have cannons on it, in a time when cannons served purely a military purpose."
- Yes, I checked your source, and it said Madison allowed the ship to have cannons FOR a military purpose: attacking enemy shipping. We are not in a war. We don't need private ships with missles, we have a navy for that. This is a reoccurring theme for this debate. We don't need private citizens to be armed. We have others to protect them. We have the strongest military in the world, so the people don't need to be armed in the way the founding fathers intended.

the point of that clearly flew right over your head. Madison let a civilian ship bear almost exclusively military arms was the point. No, I don't think civilians need military-grade firearms, but an AR-15 is a civilian grade weapon.
http://www.ar15goa.com...
"AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger."

- My point is that you can still bear arms, regardless of whether guns are banned. The second amendment mentions "Arms". Not firearms, but arms. If you want to play semantics, I can too. Even with your interpretation, it only gives the right to bear arms. So if you restrict guns, which doesn't even violate the second amendment, people can still bear arms. Just not firearms.

"the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
I don't understand how you can make that statement when the second amendment clearly disagrees. Banning guns would be a move made in SEVERE disregard of the second amendment.
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org...
"We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
The court said that banning the possession of handguns is an infringement of the Second Amendment.
The functionality of a handgun and an AR-15 Is essentially identical. AR-15s just "look scary"

I'm getting low on characters

how about Venezuela? They banned most firearms and have a much higher gun murder rate than the U.S. Or Honduras, which has stricter gun regulations and one of the highest gun murder rates in the world? Or Brazil? Or Swaziland? Or Guatemala, Jamaica, El Salvador, or Colombia? Because those countries follow strict gun laws, and have higher murder rates than the U.S.

Our murder rate is much lower than theirs actually, it's our suicide rate that makes our gun death rate as high as it is. If we were basing it off of just gun murder, America would be far lower on this list. We don't need gun control, we need therapy, apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

I cannot express how irritating it is that you keep claiming you've won points.

surprise, surprise, states with more knives have more knife related deaths, places with more cars tend to have more pollution, places with more criminals tend to have more crime. How about having people defend themselves from the crime that happens?

You can require safety measures, but you can't stop an idiot from being an idiot with them. how about more gun safety classes? That seems like a less expensive and more effective thing, to teach idiots what to do and what not to do with firearms, and not blame the gun if the idiot does something stupid with their firearm, instead of punishing law abiding citizens for it.

"While you are more likely to be shot in the occurrence of a shooting,you are also far less likely to be involved in a shooting or violent crime if you carry. A study found that you are far likely to be engaged by someone with criminal intent if you have a firearm on you."
- This is actually a bad thing. More criminals carry guns because more people carry guns. So stop concealed carry.

so you're saying it's a bad thing that people who carry firearms are much less likely to be involved in crime? I don't see your point. You're saying we need to stop concealed carry because it stops crime. As I said, a study showed that even an armed criminal is much less likely to engage with someone who they believe has a weapon on them. If more people carry, criminals will fear them more.
https://www.gunowners.org...

In conclusion, my rights then are no different than my rights now, no matter the tech. My Right to own firearms, especially civilian grade firearms, is not to be infringed, and the constitution defends that right.

I have another point I'll put in the comme
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

"That isn't how this works. If you put up gun control in Indiana people are going to smuggle guns in from other states, if the whole nation gets gun control smugglers will get them in from out of the country. It's the same with drugs, they are illegal in all states, so smugglers smuggle them in from out of the country."
- Fair enough. But there are 2 problems with this. First, if the guns are coming from out of the country, our gun laws don't apply, so the hypothetical problem would be with our border control, not our gun laws. Secondly, while yes, illegal guns will be smuggled in, the amount of illegal guns in the country will go down. Why? Well, look at your source. They say that most of the illegal guns used in Chicago come from other states, where they are legally bought. So it is easy for guns to be taken to Chicago. However, to get guns from out of the country would be much harder. You need to bring it from Mexico, passed the border, and then travel 1000 miles North to get the guns to Chicago. This would bottleneck the amount of guns getting to Chicago, as it would be way harder then driving a few minutes to Indiana, and buying a gun easily, and driving back.

"the constitution is my source, the very first words were "we the people" not "we the states" or "we the militia" or "we the government"
- Yeah, in the Preamble, not the second amendment.

"like I said in the comments, there are too many sources to link them, so I post the video because it contains all of the links."
- Yes, the comments exist. Post sources there.

"you didn't disprove my statement about the comma."
- This is because it was sourceless.

"the point of the well-regulated militia part is to establish that arms are to be used in a well-regulated militia, but the comma is there to separate that from "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." what other reason is there for the comma? I could send you a source telling you the meaning of a comma, but you should already know a comma is to separate two parts of a sentence."
- This is called a strawman argument. I never said, "What's the point of the comma?" I said, "What's the point of the first clause then?" If we interpret it your way, it doesn't make sense, as the first established nothing and there would be no reason for it. If you interpret it my way, it makes more sense. It establishes the right for militias to exist. This is because, as I've stated before, the U.S. army was almost nonexistent then, so the founding fathers decided to use the people to defend our country as well.

Also, people used commas much more often back then then they did now. This is obviously if you look at pieces of writing from then. So it is more likely that the comma is there because the fathers thought it would sound better.

"gun laws do affect law abiding citizens when you say what guns they can and cannot own, just because that's the gun a criminal owned. Non-restrictive gun laws aren't the issue, it's banning certain guns. I'd agree that fully-automatic weapons should not be in civilians hands, but a semi-automatic self-defense, hunting, and sporting gun should not be illegal.(the AR-15)"
- I disagree. The AR-15 is not good for hunting or self defense. Hunting takes patience. You wait for hours, then when you see an animal, you slowly aim, then fire your shot. If you miss your first round, the animal will obviously hear you and run away. If you had a semiauto, maybe you could get another shot, but is that really the point of hunting? Your aren't supposed to fire tons of rounds at an animal, you only should need one, or more, if you track it. Yes, you can use it, but it is not meant for it. You could use pretty much any gun for hunting, at with varying effects. This doesn't mean Nerf guns or .50 cals are meant for it, or best for it. As for home defense, the best gun would be a shotgun, or a pistol. A semi auto gun is a medium range gun, poorly suited for an intruder 5 feet away from you.

[A] With no valid source.
[B] Once again, I can throw out this source. It has no evidence, other then the authors say so. The source says the fathers knew about the Air Rifle, but once again, it links to no historical documents or anything of that sort.
[C] This is incorrect [1]. This is a link to a video with a gun that can be fired while attached to a drone. So this is legal for civilians. My point is again, as tech improves, laws need to as well. Yes, the Giradoni Air Rifle existed, but it is nothing compared to the guns we have today.

"the point of that clearly flew right over your head. Madison let a civilian ship bear almost exclusively military arms was the point. No, I don't think civilians need military-grade firearms, but an AR-15 is a civilian grade weapon."
- I don't get what you are trying to say here.

"the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
I don't understand how you can make that statement when the second amendment clearly disagrees. Banning guns would be a move made in SEVERE disregard of the second amendment.
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org......
"We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
The court said that banning the possession of handguns is an infringement of the Second Amendment.
The functionality of a handgun and an AR-15 Is essentially identical. AR-15s just "look scary"
- This doesn't rebut my statement. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't address my point.

"how about Venezuela? They banned most firearms and have a much higher gun murder rate than the U.S. Or Honduras, which has stricter gun regulations and one of the highest gun murder rates in the world? Or Brazil? Or Swaziland? Or Guatemala, Jamaica, El Salvador, or Colombia? Because those countries follow strict gun laws, and have higher murder rates than the us."
- Oh come on. You don't expect people to buy this, right? These are all 3rd world countries, some of which have drug cartels. These are not fair comparisons.

My opponent has dropped my main argument: reduction of crime. I provided 3 examples to prove this. Japan, Canada, and the individual states. Canada and Japan have a significantly lower crime rate then the HS, and they have much stricter gun laws. I then provided and example of the states. I provided a chart which showed that states with more gun laws had a lower gun homicide rate. My opponent drops this completely. So he agrees; gun control reduces crime.

"Our murder rate is much lower than theirs actually, it's our suicide rate that makes our gun death rate as high as it is. If we were basing it off of just gun murder, America would be far lower on this list. We don't need gun control, we need therapy, apparently."
- Lower then whos'. And I was only basing this off gun homicides.

"surprise, surprise, states with more knives have more knife related deaths, places with more cars tend to have more pollution, places with more criminals tend to have more crime. How about having people defend themselves from the crime that happens?"
- What is this rebutting?

"You can require safety measures, but you can't stop an idiot from being an idiot with them. how about more gun safety classes? That seems like a less expensive and more effective thing, to teach idiots what to do and what not to do with firearms, and not blame the gun if the idiot does something stupid with their firearm, instead of punishing law abiding citizens for it."
- Exactly. I said we should require safety courses and safety measures in order to buy and keep guns. This would educate the idiots and would hopefully stop them from buying guns.

For your second point, I wouldn't have a problem with guns. it is just that weak gun laws and more guns equals more death. I think guns are cool, but I believe people's lives far outweigh hobbies.

"so you're saying it's a bad thing that people who carry firearms are much less likely to be involved in crime? I don't see your point. You're saying we need to stop concealed carry because it stops crime. As I said, a study showed that even an armed criminal is much less likely to engage with someone who they believe has a weapon on them. If more people carry, criminals will fear them more."
- Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. The study I linked too showed that 75% of convicted felons said they carried guns because their victims might be armed as well. So the more people get armed, the more criminals arm themselves. This means innocent people could get shot by criminals, just because of the chance they were carrying guns.

To conclude, I believe that passing more gun laws is a good thing. It will reduce crime, as showed in the real world. It also can reduce accidental deaths, and suicides. It also is constitutional, and, if it wasn't, laws need updating as tech advances. Thanks for the debate!

Source:

https://m.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 4
NukelarApothecary

Pro

You very successfully rebutted my first point, but my point still stands, while it will be harder, the violence will not be stopped and the illegal gun smuggling will not stop. I understand your point is that it will lessen, and maybe that's true, but it will also take away my rights and freedoms so that you can feel safer, and I'd rather not test and see where it goes.

- Yeah, in the Preamble, not the second amendment.
that's not my point. The constitution is for the people, not states or governments or armies, for the people.

- This is because it was sourceless.
http://www.lawnix.com...
RULING: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I never said, "What's the point of the comma?" I said, "What's the point of the first clause then?" If we interpret it your way, it doesn't make sense, as the first established nothing and there would be no reason for it. If you interpret it my way, it makes more sense. It establishes the right for militias to exist. This is because, as I've stated before, the U.S. army was almost nonexistent then, so the founding fathers decided to use the people to defend our country as well.

In asking for the point of the first part, you imply that you are asking why the comma exists, referencing the first part of the amendment that is separated from the second by the comma.

- I disagree. The AR-15 is not good for hunting or self-defense. Hunting takes patience. You wait for hours, then when you see an animal, you slowly aim, then fire your shot. If you miss your first round, the animal will obviously hear you and run away. If you had a semi auto, maybe you could get another shot, but is that really the point of hunting? You aren't supposed to fire tons of rounds at an animal, you only should need one, or more, if you track it. Yes, you can use it, but it is not meant for it. You could use pretty much any gun for hunting, at with varying effects.

The AR-15 CAN be used for hunting was my point, not the effectiveness of it. It is an accurate weapon when used correctly, and can take down most game cleanly. It is perfectly effective and useful for hunters. As for self defense, your point is useless, because you say a semi-automatic is not useful because its a medium range gun, but a pistol is semi-automatic, and you say that's useful. You rebut yourself, or just show a clear lack of knowledge of guns.

[B] Once again, I can throw out this source. It has no evidence, other then the authors say so. The source says the fathers knew about the Air Rifle, but once again, it links to no historical documents or anything of that sort.

http://constitution.com...
They were not fools and were not oblivious to the existence of advanced firearms for the time. They were well-known firearms, the Giradoni rifles, and there is not one doubt in any person with common sense's mind that the founding fathers knew about them.

[C] This is incorrect [1]. This is a link to a video with a gun that can be fired while attached to a drone. So this is legal for civilians. My point is again, as tech improves, laws need to as well. Yes, the Giradoni Air Rifle existed, but it is nothing compared to the guns we have today.

that drone is equipped with a civilian grade firearm, I assumed you were referencing actual drones that were equipped with military grade weaponry that were accurate and dangerous. The drone you showed had no means of being accurate, isn't being mass produced, was handmade by the owner (just like any explosive or other dangerous things could be) and isn't in very many people's hands. And, like I said before, just because new tech is being produced, doesn't mean I should have to give up my rights in the modern world.

- I don't get what you are trying to say here.
My point is that an AR-15 is a gun well fit for civilian use, it's not even a military weapon, and it is used in a minuscule amount of shootings.

- This doesn't rebut my statement. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't address my point.
Your point is that banning firearms is perfectly okay by the second amendment, and its exactly what you said.

" Also, the second amendment says, "Arms." Arms doesn't only refer to firearms. If you restrict firearms, people can still have knives, bats, crossbows and so on. Even if we interpret the second amendment to say, "Everyone can bear arms", you don't need a firearm, you can bear different arms."
and it's been a reoccurring argument on your side.

- Oh come on. You don't expect people to buy this, right? These are all 3rd world countries, some of which have drug cartels. These are not fair comparisons.

you tried to use countries with 10% of our population as a fair comparison too. I'd like to bring that back for a moment, actually. "rates are controlled for population" yes, but a rate per 100,000 people is not a percentage. It isn't equal if the total numbers are different. just because it is "controlled for population" doesn't mean it can be compared with countries with 300 million more people. these countries like Canada and Australia have much less "per 100,000's" than we do, so they have less people that CAN die per 100,000. These countries are also less free than we are. Like I've said, America should be a free country, even if that means giving up our safety. I'd rather have freedom over safety.

https://www.youtube.com...
Please watch that video with a more open mind. You clearly ignored it just because of who was providing information. I know you don't like Steven Crowder, but seriously, he makes excellent points in this video, points that I have not enough characters to portray. You don't have to, but seriously, my argument is made much clearer when you have the information he provides, and here are all of the sources.
http://louderwithcrowder.com...

reduction of crime. I provided 3 examples to prove this. Japan, Canada, and the individual states. Canada and Japan have a significantly lower crime rate then the HS, and they have much stricter gun laws. I then provided and example of the states. I provided a chart which showed that states with more gun laws had a lower gun homicide rate. My opponent drops this completely. So he agrees; gun control reduces crime.

http://www.mediaite.com...
http://tv.naturalnews.com...

I didn't agree. Don't make assumptions because I didn't rebut you. I didn't have enough characters, and I decided to focus on the new issues you brought into the argument.

- Lower then whos'. And I was only basing this off gun homicides.
Lower than most countries with high amounts of gun control.

- Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. The study I linked too showed that 75% of convicted felons said they carried guns because their victims might be armed as well. So the more people get armed, the more criminals arm themselves. This means innocent people could get shot by criminals, just because of the chance they were carrying guns

This study basically says "criminals are afraid of people with guns so people shouldn't have guns so the criminals aren't afraid and won't carry guns. Disarm the victims so that the suspects won't need to." (this is my translation of it)

since gun ownership has gone up in the recent decades, gun violence has gone down in the US
https://ucr.fbi.gov...
http://www.npr.org...

as gun ownership in the U.S. has gone up, gun violence has gone down drastically.

Here are some sources to back up several of my claims
http://www.abcnewspoint.com...

I'm going to take a few characters just to say a few final things not pertaining to the debate.

Thank you for making my first debate intellectual and fun to do. Also, You've regained some of my respect for your side of the argument, although I don't agree with it in the slightest. I'm also glad to see that there's a part of the internet that isn't all just trolls saying "kys"

So he agrees; gun control reduces crime.
DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER?

It was fun!
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

"You very successfully rebutted my first point, but my point still stands, while it will be harder, the violence will not be stopped and the illegal gun smuggling will not stop. I understand your point is that it will lessen, and maybe that's true, but it will also take away my rights and freedoms so that you can feel safer, and I'd rather not test and see where it goes."
- Alright. Here is the thing. It is fine for you to own a gun. I don't care if you do. But if you make firearms easy to buy, then bad people will get them easily. I assume we can agree on that. So in order to protect everyone, we will need to make it harder for us to buy guns. Yes, illegal guns will still be here, but the number will go down. If you have nothing to hide, then the only thing preventing you from buying a gun would be classes and restrictions. You can still buy a gun, it will just take longer. But those few hours or minutes can save lives.

"This is because it was sourceless.

RULING: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
- This source doesn't address my point about how you can't prove the comma gives the right to own firearms to all.

"never said, "What's the point of the comma?" I said, "What's the point of the first clause then?" If we interpret it your way, it doesn't make sense, as the first established nothing and there would be no reason for it. If you interpret it my way, it makes more sense. It establishes the right for militias to exist. This is because, as I've stated before, the U.S. army was almost nonexistent then, so the founding fathers decided to use the people to defend our country as well.
In asking for the point of the first part, you imply that you are asking why the comma exists, referencing the first part of the amendment that is separated from the second by the comma."
- No. I was asking that if your interpretation of the second amendment is correct, then why did the founding fathers put the first clause in?

"The AR-15 CAN be used for hunting was my point, not the effectiveness of it. It is an accurate weapon when used correctly, and can take down most game cleanly. It is perfectly effective and useful for hunters. As for self defense, your point is useless, because you say a semi-automatic is not useful because its a medium range gun, but a pistol is semi-automatic, and you say that's useful. You rebut yourself, or just show a clear lack of knowledge of guns."
- Obviously it CAN be used, but it isn't meant for it. A .50 caliber machine gun CAN be used, but it wouldn't do its' job well. An AR-15 isn't meant for hunting, because semi-auto guns are not meant for hunting. Bolt-Action rifles are. As for self defense, I call strawman. I never said it would be a poor self defense weapon because it was semi-auto, I say that because it is a longer ranged rifle when you would want a shotgun or a pistol. Yes, you can use it, but there are better guns for the task.

So what is my point? This gun has no use for hunting, or self defense. There is no reason why you would have to own it.

"They were not fools and were not oblivious to the existence of advanced firearms for the time. They were well-known firearms, the Giradoni rifles, and there is not one doubt in any person with common sense's mind that the founding fathers knew about them."
- Your source helps me a lot. It says the reason why the fathers couldn't buy guns with multiple shots was because of the cost, giving me more ammunition for my technology argument. The fathers may have known about repeating rifles, but their effectiveness was so much worse then today.

"that drone is equipped with a civilian grade firearm, I assumed you were referencing actual drones that were equipped with military grade weaponry that were accurate and dangerous. The drone you showed had no means of being accurate, isn't being mass produced, was handmade by the owner (just like any explosive or other dangerous things could be) and isn't in very many people's hands. And, like I said before, just because new tech is being produced, doesn't mean I should have to give up my rights in the modern world."
- Yes, the drone shown isn't dangerous yet, but what about in 20 years? This is exactly what I am talking about. Right now, our laws about weaponized drones are fine, but what about in a couple decades? Our laws now will be horribly out of date. Now for guns. Yes, there were repeating rifles, but they were very expensive and impractical, as your sources show. Like the drone in the video I showed. It is impractical. But as time goes on, the drone and guns get way more advanced, and the laws regarding them need to change as well. And yes, you will need to give up your rights in a modern world. But the second amendment never covered the advanced rifles we had today. You might say, "But what about the Internet? The first amendment never game the right to online free speech." But, our laws have been updated to cover online speech. They haven't updated enough for guns though. Plus, not being allowed to own an assault rifle and having safety classes can save lives. Are you really willing to sacrifice other innocent people's lives for an assault rifle?

"don't get what you are trying to say here.
My point is that an AR-15 is a gun well fit for civilian use, it's not even a military weapon, and it is used in a minuscule amount of shootings."
- The AR-15, as I pointed out, has no place in civilian hands.

"come on. You don't expect people to buy this, right? These are all 3rd world countries, some of which have drug cartels. These are not fair comparisons.
you tried to use countries with 10% of our population as a fair comparison too. I'd like to bring that back for a moment, actually. "rates are controlled for population" yes, but a rate per 100,000 people is not a percentage. It isn't equal if the total numbers are different. just because it is "controlled for population" doesn't mean it can be compared with countries with 300 million more people. these countries like Canada and Australia have much less "per 100,000's" than we do, so they have less people that CAN die per 100,000. These countries are also less free than we are. Like I've said, America should be a free country, even if that means giving up our safety. I'd rather have freedom over safety."
- Please tell me you are trolling. First, your drop your own argument. You provided some examples, but they weren't fair comparisons, so now you attack me for using rates in my argument. Yes, they have fewer people who can die per 100,000, but their rate per 100,000 is significantly less. If you want it controlled for population, here: Japan had 11 gun murders in 2011. The US had over 8500. These are murders, not gun deaths in general. Japan has around 1/3 the population of the US. So if Japan had the population of the US, they would have 33 gun murders. Their rate is the same. So yes, I can compare countries with different populations.

If what you said was true, why does Alaska, the state with very few people and weak gun laws have a much higher rate of gun murders then New York, a state with manny people and strong gun laws?

I pointed this out earlier, that you didn't rebut. The 5 states with strong gun laws have the lowest gun murder rates, and the 5 states with weak gun laws have high gun murder rates. If you look at the chart I linked, you will see that states with the most gun laws have the lowest gun murder rates, and the states with the weakest gun laws have the highest gun murder rates.

And how are Canada and Japan less free?

"Please watch that video with a more open mind. You clearly ignored it just because of who was providing information. I know you don't like Steven Crowder,"
- I didn't watch the video because I want to hear your opinion, not Steven Crowder. I actually don't mind the dude. When BLM attacked his panel, I thought he handled that ok.

"didn't agree. Don't make assumptions because I didn't rebut you. I didn't have enough characters, and I decided to focus on the new issues you brought into the argument"
- But this was my main argument. Drop other things and rebut this. It isn't my fault that you ran out of characters.

"Lower then whos'. And I was only basing this off gun homicides.
Lower than most countries with high amounts of gun control."
- Yeah, 3rd world countries. This isn't a fair comparrison.

"since gun ownership has gone up in the recent decades, gun violence has gone down in the US"
- Correlation, not causation. Funny enough, many countries with lower rates of gun ownership have lower gun murder rates [1].

"So he agrees; gun control reduces crime.
DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER?"

Oh sorry, I forgot. You identify as an attack helicopter :)

To conclude, I have made several important points supporting my main point: That we should pass stronger gun laws. Here is a quick wrap up.

Gun Murder rates: States and countries that have more gun control have lower gun murder rates [1].

Suicide: Lower rates of gun ownership = lower suicide rates

Accidental Deaths: Passing gun laws and requiring safety devices on guns lowers gun deaths.

Technology: As our guns get more advanced, our laws regarding guns need to change too, which means we need updated gun laws.

Constitution: The constitution refers to a militia, not to individuals regarding the second amendment.

AR-15s: They are poorly suited to civilian use, so why do we need them?

Final word:

This topic really comes down to this: Guns vs Safety. I choose safety, because people's lives are worth more then guns.

Source:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hayd 6 months ago
Hayd
RFD Part 2:

The debate regarding the constitution is rehashed from that point on. But Con never succeeds in disproving Pro's argument that the Constitution gives the *people*, as in the American people the right to bear arms. Con spends barely any time on this point, and when he does its focused rather on the placement of the comma, and are just bare assertions, "its the right of the militia. " Thus, Pro succeeds in establishing that the legality of banning AR15s doesn't work and thus wins the debate.

Con probably debated better, but ultimately failed by not interpreting the scope of the resolution properly, inherently negating many of his arguments. Thus Con lost not by skill, but lost nonetheless.
Posted by Hayd 6 months ago
Hayd
RFD Part 1:
Preface
I have to start by establishing exactly what both debaters are supposed to be arguing. There is no specific resolution given, merely assault rifle legality. This could mean that the debaters are debating whether assault rifles *should* be legal. Or it could mean whether, given constitutional law, would banning assault rifles be legal. I lean towards the latter because the legality of something is, "the quality or state of being in accordance with the law." Thus, the debate seems to be whether banning AR15 is legal. Thus is furthered by Pro's first sentence, "I believe you have every right to own an AR-15." That isn't a should proposition, that is an "is" proposition.

Pro starts by arguing that: citizens have the *right* to own AR15s because it is guranteed to them by the 2nd amendment, and a defensive argument against the notion that AR15s cant be used for hunting. Con then argues that banning guns lowers crime by citing Japan as having strict gun control and low crime whilst the US has little gun control and high crime. This gun control argument is irrelevent because it doesn't fall under the resolution explained in the preface.

Con responds to Pro's 2nd amendment argument by saying that the amendment referred to militias being armed, not citizens. And since we don't need militias anymore since we have military, the amendment doesn't matter. Con also argues that the amendment doesn't necessitate firearms, since "arm" can mean knives, clubs, etc.. Con also argues that the law was made a long time ago and that laws can and should change, but by the resolution explained in the preface, this isn't topical. Nontopical arguments don't persuade me thus this doesn't work.

Pro responds by saying that although the right to *arm* doesn't necessitate firearms, taking away firearms takes away someones ability to be armed, and thus violates the right to be armed. This argument works, and Con's rebuttal there is negated.

CONTINUED
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 6 months ago
ConserativeDemocrat
Rebuttal. I forgot about round 5 :).
Posted by NukelarApothecary 6 months ago
NukelarApothecary
Final statements or just a rebuttal?
Posted by NukelarApothecary 6 months ago
NukelarApothecary
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

You said "we have people to protect civilians, so civilians don't need guns"

I guess that could be considered true, but we could stop a lot more people from being killed if civilians did have guns.
Posted by NukelarApothecary 6 months ago
NukelarApothecary
Keep America free, it's been hard to convey my point cause I haven't been on computer, new arguement should be released soon
Posted by KeepAmericaFree 6 months ago
KeepAmericaFree
As for the idea of the 2nd amendment not protecting the ownership of AR-15's, it is clear that it does. As technology advances, our rights are not limited their 18th century version. I'm surprised the pro argument did not mention that our 1st amendment rights protect what we say online!

Also, I do not see why crime statistics have any bearing in this debate, considering the extremely low amount of people killed by being shot with an AR. This is simply a losing issue for Democrats.
Posted by NukelarApothecary 6 months ago
NukelarApothecary
As for why there was a severe lack of sources previously, I don't have enough characters to post them all, but like I've repeated again and again, the dozens of sources Mr. Crowder uses are in the description of the videos I sent, and as for why most of my arguement is reliant on data he presents, I don't disagree with him, he gets the point across in a way I like, and if you don't want to watch the video the sources are all cited so you can look for yourself it's a bundle of my point with factual backing, presented in an entertaining manner.
Posted by NukelarApothecary 6 months ago
NukelarApothecary
I'll need to wait until Sunday to rebut. I'm tired of typing on my phone and makes this way more complicated and unorganized than I'd prefer
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 6 months ago
Hayd
NukelarApothecaryConserativeDemocratTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments <3