The Instigator
brant.merrell
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Gun Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 537 times Debate No: 60042
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

brant.merrell

Pro

The second amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois (1886), United States v. Miller (1939), District of Colombia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), is ethically sound.
9spaceking

Con

I accept. Let's go.

Debate Round No. 1
brant.merrell

Pro

brant.merrell forfeited this round.
9spaceking

Con

Extend. I hope my opponent is doing well.
Debate Round No. 2
brant.merrell

Pro

I apologize for missing round 2, and I appreciate CON's goodwill.

The second amendment was ratified at a time when rounds could only be fired from muskets one at a time, and had to be loaded separately from gunpowder. This made the gun a "democratic" weapon, in which overpowering multiple people required the cooperation of multiple other people. No weapon was equipped to destroy dozens of people per minute; the battle relevance of the weapon depended on the organization and discipline of the troops involved, while the hunting process rewarded patient and thoughtful gun owners.



Consistent with the "democratic" theme, the widespread ownership of firearms played a key role in colonial leverage the English government. The Americans could rarely defeat trained British regulars on the field, but could engage in hit-and-run skirmishes that discouraged a "military rule." Regular citizens could nick at the army, and it pressured the army to treat civilians well. It also pressured national, state, and out-of-continent governments to find non-military solutions to ruling, and write policies that benefited ordinary people as best as possible.



The wording of the second amendment defends the community role of the guns of its time. "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." Weapons kill people, but the second amendment promotes the belief that war and peace are in the hands of democracy.

9spaceking

Con

REBUTTALS
"... the hunting process rewarded patient and thoughtful gun owners." Even the most skilled gun-shooters can still accidentally shoot another person. One good example is the Dick Cheney hunting incident [1], where people got harmed by gun-shots. He was lucky he wasn't killed!
"Regular citizens could nick at the army, and it pressured the army to treat civilians well. It also pressured national, state, and out-of-continent governments to find non-military solutions to ruling, and write policies that benefited ordinary people as best as possible." The Gun rights policy does not necessarily benefit people. If not handled well, people can shoot themselves. Even famous people get shot at times....by themselves! [2] In addition, "...guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." As source [3] states. Furthermore, in just 5 years, 2005 to 2010, nearly 3,800 people died in the US from unintentional shooting, not to mention >1/3 of those people were under 25 years old. [4]

"Weapons kill people, but the second amendment promotes the belief that war and peace are in the hands of democracy. "
Nuh-uh man, peace can't be accomplished with all these deaths by guns!

Now, for my own argument:
People can't handle the responsibility. It is very hard to keep a weapon from the prying eyes and curious hands of a little child, even if you lock the weapon up. Not only that children can't handle the weapon--research found that 8% of unintentional shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children younger than 6 years old[5]--in general, people of all ages can't handle guns. States with the highest gun ownership levels had, on average, 7 times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to those with the lowest gun ownership levels. [6]

That's not all--people don't even lock their weapons up. 33% of US households have a gun[7], and 1/2 of them don't even lock up their guns--40% of which contain children under the age of 18. [8]
These children can't handle the responsibility of not touching or accidentally shooting with a gun, and neither can the parents. It is time to strip people of their gun rights; they simply can't handle the situation.

Back to you, pro.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://theweek.com...
[3] http://nyagv.org...
[4] http://webappa.cdc.gov...
[5] Ibid
[6] http://www.drgo.us...
[7] http://www.people-press.org... (Question e.F2)
[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
brant.merrell

Pro

Due to time constraints, I must forfeit round 4 and respond / conclude in round 5. I understand this constitutes an objective forfeit of conduct, and I appreciate CON's patience.
--
brant.merrell
Debate Round No. 4
brant.merrell

Pro

brant.merrell forfeited this round.
9spaceking

Con

I win. Vote me.
If my opponent wants a rematch he can re-challenge me and we each copy our round 3 as round 1 of the debate (with definitions before the arguments, of course)
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by brant.merrell 2 years ago
brant.merrell
No rush, my schedule is insane.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ill take it soon enough. just wait until tomorrow.
Posted by brant.merrell 2 years ago
brant.merrell
Switching to 4,000 characters.

I've done a few 10,000 character debates, nobody seems to read them.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
2,000 characters??? Let me think about it
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 2 years ago
Robert_Weiler
brant.merrell9spacekingTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately, Pro declined to finish the debate he started.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
brant.merrell9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
brant.merrell9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.