Gun Rights in the United States (remade)
Debate Rounds (4)
I will lay down a few definitions:
Murder - illegal homicide; the unlawful taking of someone's life by another person
Self Defense - legal homicide; lawful taking of someone's life in order to prevent death, injury, or bodily harm by a victim.
Military weapon - fully-automatic or burst-fire weapons strictly used by the military (M-16, AK-47, AUG, etc.)
Assault weapon - synonymous with military weapon
CCW - conceal carry weapon; the lawful licensing of an individual to carry a concealed weapon
Civilian - someone who is not part of law enforcement or regular military
I may have left out a few necessary definitions, but I am sure my opponent and I will cover that as our argument goes on.
Before this argument becomes rather confusing, I will state that:
- I agree that no felon, mentally-ill or otherwise unfit person should have a firearm.
- I support instant background checks and any other similar methods.
- I agree minors under the age of 18 may not buy a weapon, and must be under supervision at all times by someone 18 or over when handling such a weapon.
- I agree the world would be a better place without guns, but IF, AND ONLY IF, every single one of them are eradicated along with the numerous subcultures around them. This does not appear to be happening anytime soon, since it's pretty much integrated into American culture and various cultures throughout the world.
- Basically, I want to keep gun laws how they are according to above where necessary. Gun laws vary state to state, and where gun crime is low, I believe there is no need to implement these laws.
I will also ask my opponent to cite their sources, to which our voters will judge according to consistency and reliability. I will encourage voters to otherwise carefully vote according to the given criteria provided by this website.
I will allow my opponent to state their case, but in order to kick-start this debate, I will state a few basic points for both my opponent and myself to base our arguments upon:
- Self-defense, especially in our current world, is necessary, and given that we do not always know how deadly any possible confrontation will be, we should have firearms for our use.
- Firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment that states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."
- Children are killed in gun accidents as a result of having the awestruck attitude of not knowing what a gun is, along with the inappropriate glorification of guns by video games, movies, etc. The proper counter to this is safety education on the same level as things such as sex education, driver's education, etc.
- People kill people, firearms do not. Firearms are tools, and can work either toward good or evil.
These are basic points I have formulated, but I encourage my opponent to feel free to state their argument and more points to debate upon. I open the floor to con for a fun and civil debate, and hopefully we may convince one another along with anyone who reads this debate.
I see that the Affirmation has kindly laid out a series of definitions, but as the resolution at hand is: "Gun rights in the US," I do not see how these definitions pertain to it. Since the Aff. has failed to do so, the Negation will offer the following conditionals on:
[Gun right] : The right to keep and bear arms (guns) by citizens [of America].
As the NEGATION, I shall advocate AGAINST the Aff.'s plans for looser exercising of the 2nd Amendment rights (and hence advocating FOR stricter gun control).
I will now refute some of the "basic points" and observations my contender has made:
1. The 2nd Amendment Argument.
This is a common argument from gun rights advocates. However, ladies and gentlemen, we must see that ALL rights that impede upon others are considered null and void. In this situation, if these gun rights threaten the rights of others' safety and pursuit of happiness (as guaranteed by the US Constitution), then such right cannot be exercised. It is manifest that America should prioritize the safety and pursuit of happiness (which pertain to ALL) over gun rights (which pertain to a select few who wants to possess firearms). Ergo, if the Negation can show that gun rights induce effects that infringe/hurt these two paramount, intrinsic rights, then it shall claim victory for the round.
As well, I would like to point out the fact that the Constitution changes with time. Some "privileges" - slavery, etc. - are now considered archaic, anachronistic, and simply obsolete today. The Constitution is not an almighty document that defies the multifarious effects of time. It is then our rightful responsibility to modify the Constitution to best serve the needs of the current generation(s).
2. Self-Defense Argument:
Before the judges decide to agree to this argument, we should weight the cost and benefits. How many lives are truly saved by self-defense via firearms, versus, How many lives are lost/threatened by gun rights?
1. I assume that my opponent claims that gun rights "impede" on other rights in violation of the pursuit of happiness and right to life as stated in the Preamble of our Constitution. While a fairly logical analysis, this is false. My opponent claims the 2nd Amendment cannot be exercised because it "threatens" the safety and pursuit of happiness of others. This would be true if, in fact, the 2nd Amendment stated something along the lines of "A well regulated militia reserves the right to murder." While nothing in the Constitution directly prohibits murder, murder is prohibited in all 50 states, supported by the fact murder is prohibited in most (if for any reason not all) countries. This is rather part of a tradition, predominantly the 10 Commandments Moses received, especially since this prohibition of murder comes from England, which was predominantly Catholic at the time of the Revolution.
My opponent is correct when he states that the right to life (people's safety) and pursuit of happiness should be placed above all other rights, however, it is not "violated" by the 2nd Amendment. Rather, the abuse and violation of the laws prohibiting murder from state to state is what violate's the people's safety. The 2nd Amendment in no way advocates murder, rather, it states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." This states that people may bear arms as a right that cannot be infringed, and may gather as a militia to defend the state should the situation ever arise as it did during the Revolution.
My opponent also claims the pursuit of happiness may "pertain to a select few who want to possess firearms." This "select few" includes over 90,000,000 "applicants" which could be safely deemed as gun owners according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.  Since there is no registration system to tally these votes, I have seen numbers ranging between 50-120 million. However, 90,000,000 seems to be the most consistent number. The NRA's own research approximates 70,000,000-80,000,000 owners 
My opponent also explains that ideas such as slavery are now considered archaic, anachronistic, and simply obsolete today. I beg to differ as the right to bear arms is not archaic, and has evolved accordingly to modern technology. The first humans used sticks and stones, which were developed into spears and arrows, then metals were used to make swords, maces, axes, etc., then the idea of gunpowder was introduced that eventually lead to the invention of pistols and muskets we know were widespread in the 17th and 18th centuries, that evolved into the modern firearms we know of today during the industrial revolution. My opponent makes an excellent point that the Constitution does not defy the effects of time, but I will explain below why it will not best serve the need of our current generation to remove the 2nd Amendment.
2. My opponent asks how many lives are saved by guns. According to Gary Kleck, Ph.D criminologist at Florida State University with his parter, Mark Gertz, conclude that defensive gun uses are made about 2.5 million times a year. [3a] and [3b]. The National Institute of Justice suggests this number is even higher at 3.1 million in comparison to Kleck's studies [3c].
Now, according to the Statemaster  and the Center for Disease Control  suggest a number between 30,000-40,000 people are killed a year. Of these, 12,983 times guns in homicide in 2007 (the last year I could find) . Bear in mind that homicide includes both murder and self defense, but I am unable to find any information on the specific numbers between those 2 factors. The number of unintentional deaths was 613, which is caused mainly by plain stupidity or curiousity, and this could be prevented by simple safety education or secure storage. The number of suicides by firearm was a 17,532, but the intent rather falls on other issues such as bullying, depression, etc. Suicide could be achieved with countless other methods, and banning guns would simply lead these people to move on to other methods of suicide such as hanging, falling, etc. The above numbers add up to 31, 244 deaths in 2007.
Let's tally these numbers then:
Number of gun owners: 90,000,000 (Approx)
Number of defensive uses by guns/a year: 2,500,000
Number of conceal carry licenses issued: 3,000,000 
People killed by guns a year: 35,000 (approx)
As summarized above, the number of gun uses for defense highly outweighs how many times they are used to take lives. Using the above information, in contrast to 2.5 million times a year in defense, the number of people killed by guns is proportionally and exponentially outnumbered by those saved. It should be noted the gun does not need to be fired to thwart a criminal.
I leave the floor to my opponent.
[3c] http://www.ncjrs.gov... - Page 8
 http://webappa.cdc.gov... (Under "Intent" select the various options, and under cause select firearm, and set year 2007-2007)
TheParadox forfeited this round.
TheParadox forfeited this round.
TheParadox forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet
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.