Ban of guns in the US
Debate Rounds (3)
Keep guns just make them harder for crazy people to get!
I would like to thank my opponent for initiating a debate on a topic I feel very strongly about. Best of luck!
Almost anyone of legal can purchase a gun. I could walk six or seven blocks, peel out some bills to a private dealer, and walk home with a handgun. The existing restrictions on gun purchases are as follows: federal law prevents the sale of weapons to people who have been convicted of a felony, have a warrant out for their arrest, have used drugs within the past year, were committed involuntarily to a mental institution or ruled mentally incompetent by a judge, are living in the U.S. illegally, have a domestic-violence-related restraining order against them or have a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. People who were dishonorably discharged from the military or who have renounced their U.S. citizenship are also barred from gun purchases. While these federal restrictions sound entirely rational and appropriately strict, this is not to say that some people do not slip through the cracks. An example of this occurred in 2007, when Seung-Hui Cho purchased a gun from a licensed dealer--this after being declared mentally ill by a judge in 2005--and then killed 32 people at Virginia Tech.
Even with these federal restrictions in place, this will not prevent people from purchasing guns on the black market where anyone with the money can purchase a weapon. Also, some people may have access to guns belonging to other people in their homes, such as Adam Lanza, who killed twenty-six people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School just last year. Twenty of these victims were children. With the current flawed system, anyone with enough determination can get a gun, and this can lead to senseless violence and bloodshed.
In regards to my opponents statement on hunting--is it morally just to put the safety of our people at risk so some citizens can hunt and kill animals for sport?
My opponent also asserts that gun ownership provides protection to homeowners who may be threatened. On particularly alarming statistic regarding this: guns kept in a family home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance than a stranger. In a hypothetical scenario where all guns were banned (barring on-duty police officers and the like), someone who is breaking into a home would not be armed with a gun to threaten the victim with. They may have some sort of weapon, such as a knife, but not a gun. If all guns were banned and the ban was strictly regulated, we would have no need for guns in self-defense. As the amount of violence drops, the need for self-defense drops as well. (I fully understand that this is an idealistic scenario, but nonetheless.) Guns do not make America any safer. If it did, we would be the safest country on earth, given the fact that our nation has more guns per capita than any other nation in the world--yet we are not even close to that.
Banning guns would cut down on violence altogether. Japan, which has rather restrictive gun laws and more than a third of our population, had 47 gun-related deaths last year. America had 3,067. America also had six gun-related massacres in the year of 2013. We simply cannot afford to lose so many precious human, at any cost. We have to ask ourselves--do we care more for the lives and wellbeing of ourselves and those around us, or for the Second Amendment? The former must take precedence over the latter. With the continued ownership of guns, we will see no drop in violence levels, and, as seen throughout history, violence only begets further violence.
Cameronkliber forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments.
Cameronkliber forfeited this round.
krz forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.