Debate Rounds (4)
1. There is no second amendment
2. There is no reason to have guns to defend against tyranny
3. No one has any hunting rights
4. No one needs guns to defend themselves against animals.
I can STILL argue against (most) forms of gun control.
Most anti-gun or gun control proponents are too quick too assume that if we get rid of guns, we are automatically reducing all violence. Actually, the core causes of gun violence, and thus violence in general in America, are not due to the presence of guns, but other factors such as poverty, under-education, drastic wealth inequality, and a Black Market Drug Trade.
Ultimately most forms of gun control affect only people who obey laws, such as "gun free zones," or would have virtually little or even negative effects on total violence in America, such as banning Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines. Even in the event that there are any positive effects from banning certain guns or larger capacity magazines, it would probably take around 50 years before we started seeing even minute benefits, if any.
So then what would be a true solution to gun violence? Most gun violence and violence in general is fueled by the drug trade. So if your serious about fighting gun violence, let's legalize or at the very least decriminalize some drugs.
While my opponent is right when he mentions that a gun is by no means the soul cause of the problems and brings out all the correct reasons for it ,he approaches the problem the wrong way.You see the gun is not the reason for high rates of crime ,it is the tool through which these crimes are committed and no matter how much people love their guns ,no matter how paranoid they are about their government trying to enforce a tyranny on them so they have to protect themselves , the fact remains that the gun is first and foremost a lethal object , most of the time if not all the time ,meant only to strike another person down . We can debate all we want over why we have crime but what we know for certain is HOW we have crime and we have it through firearms ,firearms that are very easy to obtain in the US.
We cannot solve the mentioned causes that lead to high rates of crime without removing ,or at least enforcing more strictly the ways through which people get their hands on a firearm in the US.Yes the criminals will always find a way to obtain a gun but with the proper laws and regulations in place , we can at least make it substantially more difficult for them to do so which will greatly reduce gun crime.
The second benefit from gun control would be the decrease in freak accidents within the US homes themselves where there have been more than a fair share of cases where a minor gets their hands of a fully loaded firearm WITH the parent's permission i might add and the results are catastrophic.Just a couple of days ago a news piece was reported where a young man accidentally killed his younger sister with a loaded weapon supposedly built just for a child (a concept which is just mind blowingly stupid itself). With stricter laws on guns ,not this many weapons would find their way into the very wrong homes .
Overall , i firmly believe that this obsession with having guns as easily obtainable as possible has little to do with a man being able to protect himself with his rifle or fight agains the "government tyranny" but more with the simple fact that the gun , the firearm is simply what defines the US culture ,it IS the US culture , the US simply love guns.It is a culture that has no place in a modern world which is striving towards reason and the gun laws would greatly help to bring change into this culture.
I have often encountered what I call the purpose of a gun argument, or that we should ban guns (or certain types of weapons, such as Assault Weapons) because they were designed to kill as many people as possible. This argument is, respectfully, a bad argument because:
1. The purpose of an object is, firstly, a matter of opinion. We can argue all day that the AR-15 is an military weapon meant for killing, and other people can return the same way and argue it is the civilian issue version of a military rifle without military features (such as being fully automatic).
2. It does not matter what an object was designed for, only how it is used. If a gun is used, for example, by a women to deter a rapist, then it has not been used immorally (even if the defensive use was illegal). Therefore we must consider the net effect of how often guns are used to inflict harm vs. how often guns are used justly (i.e. self-defense).
Guns are used far more often for self-defense than to inflict harm. Roughly 500,000 crimes are committed with guns every year (see http://www.justfacts.com...), and if you examine the FBI Uniform Crime Reports roughly 10,000 people are murdered every year by guns.
One survey performed by Gary Kleck performed in 1993 found that guns are used defensively about 2.2-2.5 million times every year, and 162,000 people would have died had they not had a gun. This number is most likely too high based on the methods used buy the survey, but even if only 10% of the cases were true, 16,000 would be saved by guns every year vs. the 10,000 people murdered by guns.
Additional studies performed by the CDC found that people use guns to frighten away or defend themselves against Burlglars approximately 500,000 times per year (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). A similiar to Kleck's survey found there are roughly 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year (see https://www.ncjrs.gov...).
Additionally, there is around 600 fatal gun accidents every year, which is still heavily outweighed by the estimated number of people saved by having guns (see http://www.justfacts.com...)
Given How I have previously hindered myself, I cannot argue against required gun safety training before buying a gun, background checks for all gun sales, and a federal firearm registry on all guns (which can be argued against only by referencing using guns to defend against tryanny).
Lastly nearly all forms of gun control have been counterproductive and have either led to more people being killed, such as the British 1997 firearms act (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...)
Or gun control measure have had no effect whatsoever on crimes and suicides, such as in the case of Australia (http://www.gunsandcrime.org...).
Guns therefore prevent more suffering and deaths then the harms they inflict.
juri.kallas forfeited this round.
ufcryan forfeited this round.
juri.kallas forfeited this round.
juri.kallas 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.