Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective.
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
PrimalConcrete50 forfeited this round.
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!
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.
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.)
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.
PrimalConcrete50 forfeited this round.
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.
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.