The Instigator
Gibby
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
KnowItAll
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Gun Laws in America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,338 times Debate No: 29332
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Gibby

Con

I am pro guns and am proud of it. I am in favor of anyone who wants to own a gun and is mentally stable should have access to a gun of any type, whether it be an assault weapon or a simple pistol.
KnowItAll

Pro

I am happy to debate this topic. It is my opponents position that "anyone who wants to own a gun and is mentally stable should have access to a gun of any type, whether it be an assault weapon or a simple pistol." However, my opponent has not made it clear as to what the benefit of allowing anyone who is mentally stable to won a gun would be to society.

As my opponent has admitted to being pro gun I will infer that he feels that arming anyone will have a positive effect on crime rates. However, according to a study conducted by the National Research Council in 2004, "there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crime associated with firearms. " [1]

I would greatly appreciate my opponent stating why he feels that any mentally stable person should have access to firearms of any type.

[1]http://factcheck.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Gibby

Con

My reasoning is actually very simple but first, thank you for debating this with me!

People are so concerned with guns and crime rates when talking about the second amendment but what does the second amendment actually say?

"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."

27 words. The second amendment is not directly talking about self defense from fellow citizens. It is talking about the right to defend your freedom should a tyrannic government rise up and try to take away your most basic rights. With this being said, I feel that any mentally stable person should have access to firearms in order to defend freedom in the unfortunate case that our own government one day becomes corrupted.

You might be asking yourself "Why do they need access to all firearms? Wouldn't a hand gun be a suitable defense?" Admittedly, it gets more difficult here because you do have to keep these weapons out of the hands of unstable people. The government has access to one of the deadliest militaries in the world. I would know because I am a part of it. If the government turns on its people, they would use militant force, no questions asked. What is a pistol going to do against an assault weapon? It truly is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Civilians should have access to weapons that would actually do some good should this situation ever occur. Call me crazy but that is what our founding fathers intended with the second amendment.

"The beauty about the second amendment is it will not be needed until they try to take it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Taking away the right to bear arms is the first step to tyranny. Hitler, Stalin, Castro. Not to mention, most gun control being pushed into laws right now will do nothing to stop a mentally unstable person from bombing a building or buying a gun off of the black market. Welcome to the real world where wishful thinking doesn't stop murder. Killing will always happen and taking away the right to bear arms will only expand a murderer's horizons.
KnowItAll

Pro

I agree that the intent of the framers of the constitution was to afford protection of citizens against a tyrannical government which was of great concern in 1787. However, the framers of the constitution were smart enough not to include a provision stating "without restriction."

My opponent states that "I am in favor of anyone who wants to own a gun and is mentally stable should have access to a gun of any type, whether it be an assault weapon or a simple pistol." Anyone means any person. My opponent did not place any restrictions such as age or a felon who was convicted of a violent crime using an illegal firearm.

Placing restrictions on gun ownership does not violate our 2nd amendment rights. In District of Columbia V. Heller, the Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home. "The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear firearms is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain "presumptively lawful," according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally ill, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," (5) prohibit "dangerous and unusual weapons," and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents." [1]

The above decision in itself can restrict U.S. citizens to certain types of guns. In addition, did the framers of the constitution consider that there would be guns capable of firing 3 rounds per second or 180 rounds per minute in the year 2013 compared to the guns available in 1787 which "were single shot black powder muskets, single shot black powder pistols, both of which used flintlocks and a primed pan and were muzzle loaders." [2]

I believe a complete misunderstanding exists between those who feel that the 2nd amendment affords the ability to bear any and all types of arms without restriction. As my opponent is attempting to argue that any mentally capable person should be be able to possess a gun of any type for any reason is a prime example. Simply placing restrictions on gun ownership via gun laws is in now way an attempt by government to violate our 2nd amendment rights much in the same as freedom of speech afforded to us by the 1st amendment. We have freedom of speech but it does not allow us to say anything and everything we want at any given time.

"Taking away the right to bear arms is the first step to tyranny. Hitler, Stalin, Castro. Not to mention, most gun control being pushed into laws right now will do nothing to stop a mentally unstable person from bombing a building or buying a gun off of the black market. Welcome to the real world where wishful thinking doesn't stop murder. Killing will always happen and taking away the right to bear arms will only expand a murderer's horizons."

My opponents is right in that killing will always happen as unfortunately it is a part of life. However, I fail to see how bringing up 2 communists in Stalin and Castro as well as a Fascist in Hitler has anything to do with the capitalistic democracy we live in. Requiring background checks on those purchasing firearms as well as having a national database of weapons in circulation may very well not prevent a mentally unstable person from purchasing a weapon on the "black market" but could very well allow law enforcement to trace that weapon back to the person who sold it to him or her.

It is my position that restriction does not equate to infringement and alowing any mentally stable person to have access to any gun of any type would not only be reckless but dangerous to society.

[1]http://www.cga.ct.gov...
[2]http://richardvaningram.hubpages.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Gibby

Con

Gibby forfeited this round.
KnowItAll

Pro

My opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof and has forfeited the last round. As such I respectfully request a vote for Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KnowItAll 4 years ago
KnowItAll
Government does not and will not fear the people due to firearms. Goverment fears people through action as in the 1st Amendment. Government has little fear of the people in this day and age due in large part to our inability as a poplulation to agree on mostly nothing. Government will not fear the people as long as we the people continue to elect the lesser of 2 evils to represent our country.
Posted by Gibby 4 years ago
Gibby
Sorry KnowItAll, I just lost interest when you implied that I thought children and criminals should also be able to carry guns. I realized that arguing with you was pointless. Especially when everything on your profile, including your Thomas Jefferson quote, supports my thesis. Seriously, what reason does the government have to fear the people once they disarm the people? I'm done with this "debate."
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
There is a limit on types of arms now, because we have allowed the second amendment to be compromised. Whether that is a good or bad thing is really the fundamental issue of this debate.
Posted by meigscounty1 4 years ago
meigscounty1
So why is there a limit on the type of arms now, no one is allowed to have full auto, so you are picking the parts you want? Seems your narrow vision of the 2A is only what you want it to be. The 2A itself is restricted to the arm of the day. The founding fathers only knew of one type of arm at the time. There were no fiction books that described in any way a weapon of today back then. Even a cartridge was unheard of back then, there were no double barreled guns. I was a member of the NRA until there left leaning views overtook the meaning of the 2A. Preaching paranoia is all they know to survive.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
@meigscounty1: the stated purpose of the amendment is clear, that the right to bear arms is intended to protect against a future tyrannical government. As such, the armaments protected should in no way be considered to be limited to what was available when the amendment was written.
Posted by meigscounty1 4 years ago
meigscounty1
The Second Amendment is 221 years old, made in a day with about only one kind of gun. One gun with one bullet that is what it's all about. I have a right to defend against a tyrannical government and protect my home and you have a right to have a gun to protect yourself. You can have 10 guns, 20 guns, 100 guns. But not one of them should have more than one bullet. It took us Americans 100 years to mess this amendment up by allowing the first semi auto to be legal. If we had not messed this up then no one could carry 10 guns to school and kill ten because an American would stand up and not allow it with a simple tackle, and with that said another would come right behind them and pile on until the coward is stopped and not allowed to kill another or themselves. It took us 100 years to mess this up and it may take another hundred to fix it. Protectors in our schools with guns may be needed for now, we may have no choice because that is the world today. Guns that shoot more than one bullet are going to have to be stopped. Large draconian cuts in what we have right now cannot happen simply because those with powerful guns cannot even comprehend such an event. There hate towards anyone even talking this way turns them into a person with rage. The NRA not offering anything but more guns is the gun industry promoting the sell of guns and that all. They are only thinking about profits every company needs but hiding it behind the 2A.

I love my country, I love my family, but I only like being able to have a gun.
Posted by KnowItAll 4 years ago
KnowItAll
It's really not that bad. Just like any major city, there are areas you need to stay away from but the city has a lot to offer. I couldn't imagine living anywhere else, then again, I've never lived anywhere else. :) If you ever do manage to make it over here you'll have a great time.
Posted by gwilson 4 years ago
gwilson
Yeah i totally agree that tighter controls can do no wrong. I'm from Scotland and here we have terrible knife crime. There is also a high level of poverty, though the British government will repudiate that claim. i am in agreement that it's too late to argue about welfare because that ship has already sailed. this was just food for thought. tighter controls are the most pragmatic measures to take right now. on a side note, i really really want to come to new york. it is first in my projected travel destinations. tell me it's not all that bad :D
Posted by KnowItAll 4 years ago
KnowItAll
Include suicides and the number is actually above 30,000. In New York City, where I live, in 2011 there were a little over 9,000 guns used to commit crimes that did not result in death but over 7,500 of the guns used came from out of state where gun regulations are more lax such as Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. It does not have to do so much of the welfare of these people but how to prevent these people from getting their hands on these fire arms. Tighter gun regulations will be more helpful than detrimental in my opinion. Tighter gun regulations will not prevent responsible gun owners from owning guns but will help weed out the irresponsible in my opinion.
Posted by gwilson 4 years ago
gwilson
I'm in two minds about this. it's easy to argue that 11,000 gun-related deaths per year is enough to justify tighter gun controls, but there is a stark parallel between these murders and social class. the vast majority are committed by disenfranchised, ghetto dwelling gangs. the state has let these people slip through the net in terms of welfare. Even Adam Lanza, it could be argued, wasn't given the support that should be required by the state. So for the government to adopt a position, where they take little responsibility for the real root cause of much of the violence committed in the republic, is quite hypocritical. any thoughts?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
GibbyKnowItAllTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con; Pro failed to meet burden of proof. Conduct to Pro; Con forfeited the last round. Sources to Pro; Con used none.