The Instigator
PrimalConcrete50
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
thatguy933
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,325 times Debate No: 29121
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

PrimalConcrete50

Pro

I've sold firearms for almost two years now, in Texas. We started our right to carry option after a massacre at a Luby's restaurant in 1991. Since then we have seen less violence than other states with regard to firearms in "gun free" zones. I find it ludicrous that schools should be "gun free" when that makes them obvious targets to psycho dissidents. On a second note, AR-15 (ArmaLite-15) style rifles are just semi-automatic rifles, no different from any other rifle except cosmetics are demonized. I find this repulsive, as they are used WIDELY in Texas for hog hunting and 3-gun shooting competition, among other shooting sports. They are just like any other gun, and if Adam Lanza couldn't get one, he'd have used the much more powerful Glock 20 (10mm) or Sig Sauer of undefined specs to do the same damage. Why are we bullying the rifle when the handguns are just as capable? Why are we bullying any gun when anybody is capable? If guns are responsible for murder, then forks are responsible for obesity and cars are responsible for accidents, as well as governments are responsible for wars (snap!)
thatguy933

Con

Firearm bans are constitutional and yes they are effective. First most fully-automatic weapons are already banned for United States citizens, so the banning of firearms has already been proved constitutional. Secondly firearm bans have already been proved effective in the world. As reported by Piers Morgan of CNN, Britain, who has strict firearm laws, in 2012 reported that the total number of deaths by cause of a firearm was 33. In 2008, Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, reported 11 total firearm homicides for the year. In the United States the total number of deaths reported by cause of a firearm in 2012 was some 11,000. That is a horrifically larger number. So proved by other nations around the world firearm bans are completely effective. I'm sure Texas has seen less violence than other states regarding firearms in "gun free" zones, but not as much violence reduction as is possible. Instead of worrying about putting more armed officers in schools to confront psychos, why not make it harder for those psychos to get the guns in the first place. Would you rather there be a gun fight in a school, or would you rather there be no armed psycho near the school at all? Regarding AR-15s, when modified, semi-automatic rifles can behave exactly like fully-automatic firearms. The weapon used in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting was a modified AR-15 that unleashed multiple rounds into an unsuspecting crowd. It would be too bad that some Texans would have to give up hog hunting with semi-automatics in order to save some lives, but in a democracy there has to be sacrifice. Also, forks have a useful role in the United States, semi-automatic firearms do not.

1. http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Debate Round No. 1
PrimalConcrete50

Pro

PrimalConcrete50 forfeited this round.
thatguy933

Con

I'm just waiting for my opponent to answer me.......
Debate Round No. 2
PrimalConcrete50

Pro

Sorry, been incredibly busy selling a lot of firearms. I think you meant "proven" and not "proved." Anyway, just because something has been done doesn't make it constitutional. The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed." not "you can have guns under this level of fire power." So gun control is effective? Check Chicago and D.C. both with strong gun laws and high gun crime rates. Then, you quote Piers Morgan, who is an idiot and has skewed statistics. Though he is right that full-on gun bans will reduce gun crime, you should note that it does nothing to change violent crime rates. If you're going to cite Japan, well, I guess you've never been to Asia. In Asian cultures, there exists a homogeneous population which takes out the variables we have in the US. Like-minded for the most part in places like Korea and Japan, with a strong system of honor tied to morality (opposite of the gang bangers and thugs complacent parenting causes.) Then there's China. I guess you don't hear about how psychopaths go on stabbing rampages in China because their incredibly controlling government restricts guns (it's the psychos not the guns.) Let's go further into that. China is essentially a totalitarian government just recently accepting capitalistic practices. Japan is an island, making total firearm restriction possible, and essentially the same for Korea. Now, when governments do allow gun ownership but restrict it more severely...criminals just get illegal guns anyway. Take El Salvador, highest gun death rate in the world...and more restrictive gun ownership laws than the USA. http://www.gunpolicy.org... I'd further like to mention a full-on gun ban in the USA, a country founded with the help of privately owned firearms, would likely be impossible anyway (you'd never find the majority) and semi-automatic firearms have plenty of uses in the USA. Just because you don't enjoy the many different shooting sports and ability to defend your home from dangerous, law-ignoring criminals, doesn't make it ok for you to disarm me or anyone who does. Ever hear of fascism? Perhaps focusing on mental health and proper background checks, instead of blaming the massive community of responsible gun owners would actually work. Anyway, might not respond for a while, work is busy as can be!
thatguy933

Con

It is true, that the Second Amendment does say "shall not be infringed", but there is no denying that there are restrictions, and there have been restrictions on weapons before. Last time I checked you can't walk into a gun store, and purchase a missile launcher. So it is true you can only have guns under a certain level of fire power. Also, Thomas Jefferson was quoted saying ""Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.". The constitution was constructed specifically to be changed, or else citizens would still be allowed to own slaves. Saying that Chicago and D.C. have high gun rates, and strong gun laws, is only telling part of the story. If you look at the states around Chicago and D.C., they happen to have some of the loosest gun laws in the United States, it is too easy to smuggle in guns from around those states. Regarding Piers Morgan, the statistics I showed you are 100% real, you can fact check them. Never once in our debate have I seen you introduce actual statistics. Also, if you look back on my first argument, never did I state that gun laws will reduce VIOLENT crime rates, what I did say though is that they will reduce GUN crime rates, which is a step in the right direction. You can cite Japan culture all you want, but I have actual proof that people in Japan are just as likely to comit a crime. Japan is currently ranked 4th in total crime in the world. So they are not as moral as you would like to think. However, in gun crime rates, Japan is ranked 20th in the world. The United States has only 3 times more crime than Japan, but when it comes to gun crime rates the United States has 198 times more gun crime. Also, in your argument you say that psychopaths go on stabbing rampages in China, but what you fail to recognize is that if those psychopaths had guns they could do a lot more damage. Think about it, would you rather confront a crazy with a knife, or a crazy with a semi-automatic weapon? I think the answer is pretty clear. Also, please think long and hard about when you compare El Salvador with the United States. El Salvador is a crime ridden country, run by gangsters, and thugs. I don't know how you could possibly argue that comparing the U.S. to El Salvador is more reasonable that comparing the U.S. to Britain. In addition, there is no reason a home owner cannot defend their home with a simple handgun, or an individual who enjoys shooting sports can't go to a range to practice their sport. Nobody is going to need 70 rounds of bullets to protect their home from intruders, and shooting sports are not a good enough of a reason to justify the need for semi-automatics. Furthermore, there have been 7 mass shootings in the United States in 2012 alone, there is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed. I never once stated that we should ignore mental health, and proper background checks. What I am saying though is that the banning of semi-automatic weapons is a step forward in solving the problem of mass shootings in the United States.
Debate Round No. 3
PrimalConcrete50

Pro

I'll make this part short as possible. How are gun bans constitutional? By that, we aren't using a quote from a politician who drafted the Declaration of Independence as our Nation's guiding document. We have the Constitution for that. The founding fathers also drank quite heavily. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (A liberal source for your fancy)

The Constitution EXISTS. When something goes against it, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's the point of this argument, not what Thomas Jefferson said after a bottle of port.

As for your Piers Morgan, I have a counter-statistic in video format, both enjoyable and factual for you and readers of this debate.

http://youtu.be...

So, it seems you are concerned with GUN CRIMES specifically? Why? Is it the horror of a number of people being killed in a very rare instance which could just as easily have resulted from a bomb? Or, is it prejudice against guns because they are the choice of both law abiding citizens, as well as cowards who use them for suicide and homicide? A gun IS easier but restricting them or BANNING them will only increase your other crimes (bombings, such as we saw in the 1990's, stabbings and other crimes of which we already see much.)

So, I feel I have shown that firearm bans are both UNCONSTITUTIONAL and INEFFECTIVE. Now, I will side with you on the machine guns. I happen to work at a store that legally deals in the 250,000 or so remaining transferable ones in the US. It's just way too expensive to run through all that ammo at the range!

Also, wondering, if you're just arguing for guns to be banned to prevent crime, how does this help you? " Japan is currently ranked 4th in total crime in the world. So they are not as moral as you would like to think. However, in gun crime rates, Japan is ranked 20th in the world. "

Sounds like crime is crime. Pretty amazing they have any gun crime at all, when you consider the amount of OCEAN surrounding them.

Perhaps banning semi-automatic guns will reduce mass-shootings in the United States. Of course, that would be a massive undertaking that would result in civil war, so I'm content that it won't happen. However, when you take away the guns from LAC (Law Abiding Citizens from now on) then you do NOTHING to stop killers, unless the killer happens to be the mentally challenged son of an irresponsible gun owning teacher...but I guess it was the fault of the guns that Adam Lanza's mother was an idiot who allowed him to gain possession of 2 HANDGUNS as well as the rifle.

In summary, you have not shown how firearm bans are CONSTITUTIONAL, nor EFFECTIVE (effective is broadly stated here, but you like to use words however you see fit, so take it as you want.)
thatguy933

Con

First I would like to say that this argument isn't about liberals, or conservatives, this argument is about figuring out a way to make the United States a safer and better place to live.

Secondly, you keep asking me how gun bans are constitutional, but I keep responding and giving you examples of restrictions on firearms. In the first round I stated that most fully-automatic weapons are already banned from the private use of citizens. Fully-automatic weapons are obviously firearms, and they are banned. Making the banning of firearms constitutional.

I fail to understand how showing that the founding fathers drank quite heavily makes my quote any less effective. What my quote was showing was that the founding fathers intended to make the constitution so that it could be changed. You say that anything that goes against the constitution, is unconstitutional. But what about the ban on slavery, that went against the constituion, is the banning of slavery unconstitutional? What about when women were not allowed to vote, is the ban on voting restrictions unconstitutional? As a society we develop and grow out of old laws. So not everything that goes against the constitution make it unconstitutional.

I watched the youtube clip and did a little bit of fact checking on those statistics. It turns that if your read carefully Ben Swann is saying that 400 gun murders are justifiable because the police shot them, and 200 are justifiable because they were in self-defense. Making the rest of the 7,903 gun homicides unjustifiable (makes you wonder why those statistics were presented the way they were). Also I did a fact check on the number of deaths caused by guns a year in Britain. 39 is the number of deaths caused by guns with the JUSTIFIABLE deaths added to it. 35 is the number of unjustifiable deaths. However you put it 7,903 to 35 is a ridiculous ratio. Also I did some fact checking on Ben Swann's crime statistics. I'm not sure where he got his statistics from but according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, the United States has 5,353,512 more crimes a year than Great Britain. Also a ridiculous ratio.

Regarding your questions on Japan. In round 3 you stated that Japan doesn't commit as many gun murders as the United States because they have a "homogeneous population which takes out the variables we have in the US.". By showing you the statistic that Japan is ranked 4th in total crime in the world, I was showing you that they really don't have more morals than the United States. Because they are ranked 4th in crime, but 20th in gun murders, I was proving that the gun restrictions are having an effect on their society.

But enough with the overseas statistics, as you are obviously never going to accept them. Lets look at our neighbors up north, Canada. Canada has much stricter gun laws than the United States. Canada also has 4 times less crime than the United States. In addition Canada has 64% less firearm murders than the United States. That research is also done by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention. Canada has a similar society to ours, but because of tighter gun restrictions they are able to enjoy a lower crime rate than the United States.

I have no comment on the civil war remark, as that is for the voter to decide wether that is a legitimate claim or not.

In your last argument you stated that the number of people being killed in a very rare instance could just as easily have resulted from a bomb. If so, then why don't we hear about any major bombings in Canada, or Great Britain, or Japan. What has to understood is that banning of certain firearms makes it harder for mass murders to comit the acts of terror they comit. The other thing that has to be understood is that stabbings are much easier to defend against, as oppose to a semi-automatic firearm. It is not rational to compare a knife to any type of firearm.

Also, regarding Adam Lanza's mother. She is to blame for allowing her son to get a hold of her weapons. But can I ask, what did she need a semi-automatic weapon for? It is highly unlikely she would unleash multiple rounds of amo on an intruder. What I am getting at is that there is no rational need for these high powered weapons to be in the hands of citizens, when it has been proven time and time again that these weapons have been mis-handled.

So in conclusion, firearm bans have been proven constitutional in the past. You can't walk into a store and buy fully-automatic weapons, or missile-launchers, or a tank. Restrictions on certain firearms are constitutional. Also, restrictions on firearms have been proven effective. Anywhere from Canada, to Britain, to Japan, restrictions on firearms have helped lower gun crime rates, and in return a safer enivorment.
Debate Round No. 4
PrimalConcrete50

Pro

PrimalConcrete50 forfeited this round.
thatguy933

Con

Since my opponent isn't responding I'll make this as short as possible,

Firearms have been banned before, like the assault weapons ban, making the banning of certain firearms legal, and constitutional.
Just to clear it up, I'm am not arguing in favor of bans on all firearms, I'm arguing in favor of bans on certain firearms (which by the way is constitutional).

To answer the second part of the statement, firearm bans have been proven effective. Just take a look at our neighbors around us (like Canada). If that's not good enough look at New York city, some of the strictest firearm laws in the nation, lowest crime rate of any major U.S. city. The proof is all around, and it can't be denied.

My opponent has failed to prove that guns are effective, or constitutional. Two of the 5 rounds he hasn't even responded. I have presented many statistics proving my point, and my opponent hasn't been able to refute any of those numbers. I think it is pretty clear who has the better argument.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by PrimalConcrete50 4 years ago
PrimalConcrete50
excellent debate, I think we both did well. however, I should point out, that in some states, actually the majority of them, you can buy a fully automatic gun, but, it takes longer to get with a more stringent background check. so, they aren't fully band.
No votes have been placed for this debate.