Debate Round Forfeited
tommylibertarian1 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||5 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||324 times||Debate No:||96742|
Debate Rounds (4)
Hi, I hope that we can have a nice debate. No swearing please and do not be too rude, although I will probably shrug it off.
The second constitution tells us that we have the right to bear arms. Why would we oppose something directly in our constitution, it would make it easier to break other constitutional rights in the future. We should not be restricting our right to bear arms.
OK, so, our second amendment states that we have a right to keep and bear arms. It also states that it this right shall not be infringed upon. The reason our Founding fathers have made this law was not intended for self defense, not intended for hunting and gathering food, it was to protect against government tyranny. This means that we should be able to protect ourselves from our own government if it goes berserk and corrupt.
I understand, that some gun control only wants the ban of assault weapons, but here is the truth. Far more people are killed by handgubns than assault rifles. In 2012, only 332 people were murdered by any kind of rifle. And actual firearm crimes account for a very small percentage. In fact , most firearm deaths are suicides. The National Institute of Justice has been researching this for years and a study from 1993 to 2011 shows that gun violence only accounts for at most, 8 percent of all violent crimes.
¨But assault weapons are the weapons of choice of mass shooters¨, one might say, criminalist James Alan Fox estimates that there are less than 100 victims per year related to these events. But their deaths account for less that one percent of all homicides.
Gun control does not help us, because most criminals get their guns through illegal means. This includes stealing and the blackmarket.
"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." -Second Amendment of the US Constitution
Regulation means "To make regular" and it also means a rule or directive made and/or maintained by authority.
Merriam-Webster defines militia as: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
subject to call or the whole body of able bodied male citizens subject to call to military service.
In the time of the American revolution, the militia were everyday people with arms as the organized force. However the Constitution clears sets up the organized militia in terms of the state. In fact the Second Amendment is not the only place the militia is referred to. Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia". This is in clear reference to the armed forces of the state or government organized civilian force like the National Guard.
The term in the Second Amendment "...being necessary to the security of a free State..." refers to national defense and security. Prior to the US Constitution being drafted private forces defended the land but after its drafting clearly the advent of the government military and militia means that the rights of holding arms as a collective right shifted from the private sphere to the state.
In all this we see that no individual right to have arms exists. There can be debate about whether or not it is reasonable for individuals to have arms for limited purposes such as self defense, sport and so forth and what types of weapons should be allowed for public safety. This is the idea of gun control.
C2: Reasonable gun control reduces gun violence
In 2014 the United States saw 33,736 firearms deaths. which is a rate of 10.6 per 100,000 citizens(1) Compare to Canada who has legal access to firearms with restrictions and the rate is 1.97 per 100,000.(2) The main difference being the restricted access to handguns. Rifles are easy to buy in Canada just like the United States but handguns are tough to get. Most individual gun deaths occur via handgun in the United States.
Some say gun ownership deters crime, however we find that generally only 40% of criminals surveyed in prison had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun."(3).
We have also seen that restricting or prohibiting certain types of guns while not prohibiting all firearms works well in other nations. Australia most notably engaged in a buyback of assault weapons and saw a successful decrease in firearms violence. (4)
From the above data and much more that is available we can see that a balanced approach where reasonable firearms restrictions can improve public safety while not totally banning the private ownership of firearms. When you combine this with the fact that most Americans support background checks, mental health screening and other reasonable gun control measures(5) the only conclusion we can make for benefit of the American public is that reasonable gun control should be enacted and kept in place.
2) "Canada " Gun Facts, Figures and the Law". Gunpolicy.org. University of Sydney School of Public Health.
The Second Amendment or the Constitution says: "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."
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." This is pretty much straight forward, It gives us, the people, the right to keep and bear arms."
This does not mean the state, this does not mean the government, it means the people, the ordinary citizens. I believe in the right to bear arms to protect us government tyranny. I believe that in the next 75 to 100 years, we may be faced with government tyranny. Imagine if the Jews in WWII had any firearms of any sorts, they would have at least the chance to fight back.
2:Reasonable gun control reduces gun violence, but not all violence
You were talking about how in 2014, the United States saw 33,736 firearm deaths. Not many of those were actual murders. The total gun suicides in 2014 was 21,334.(1) If you do some quick math, that leaves only 12,402 murders/accidents.
Since 1994 there has been a significant increase in the consumption of firearms , yet the homicide rate has been dropping, from 7.0 per 100,000 to 3.6 per 100,000.(2)
Going back on your deterring crime, if we can eliminate a crime by 40%, then why would we not take it.
Australia after its gun ban had not seen any drop in crime rate. Australia in 2006, 16.3% of all homicides were firearm homicides, that is the most it had ever been. It also saw more violent crimes. In the period of 1995 to 2007, Australia saw a 49.2% rise in assault, a 6.2% rise in robbery, and a 29.9% rise in sexual assault.(3)
We can see from the statistics above that gun control may only reduce gun violence, but that will most likely NOT stop a determined criminal. Gun control is only taking away our guns, our freedom from the government. It is not helping reduce crime rate, it is not helping us reduce homicide rate, and it is not helping us in general. I will agree with you though that I do believe that there should be background checks and mental health screening. Gun control is completely unnecessary to the health and benefit of the public.
For previous argument:
2) (I can't remember the other sites but it was a terrible argument anyways)
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
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.