The Instigator
Animalwiz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
74 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 13 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2010 Category: News
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,898 times Debate No: 12529
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (13)

 

Animalwiz

Con

Both my mother and Father are retired New York city Cops. My mother and I believe that certain people like cops and Convent store Owner and those who carry large amount of money should have the right to own a gun. However My father and other people I have talk this issue about disagree with me and believe that I am being unfair and that I am playing favoritism.
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate!

Nicolo Machiavelli once said that there were five reasons why it was absolutely essential for individuals to enjoy a right to keep and bear arms: to protect one's self, to keep rulers honest, to hunt, to defend the state against foreign invasion and to maintain one's republican character (lol). After all, how could any liberty be more vital than the second amendment? It makes every other civil liberty Americans enjoy possible. If not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government with their rights existing only at their government's pleasure [1].

I'll begin my rebuttal by responding to my opponent's claim that only cops, convenient store owners and those who carry large amounts of money should be able to own guns. While it's clear that a legitimate argument can be made for why cops are allowed to own guns - why convenient store owners in particular? Why not bookshop keepers or grocery store owners or Taco Bell? Convenient stores (which typically do not deal with large sums of money) are just one type of many stores; many stores deal with even larger sums of money on a daily basis - such as Macy's. Further, what constitutes a "large amount" of money? And what if a 17 year old had this large amount - would they be eligible to carry a gun?

These standards to me seem far too loose and non-specific. I don't see the relevance. Additionally, there seems to be a double standard in terms of responsibility and trust. For instance, it would appear that Con's advocacy for money-handlers to be allowed guns is so that they can make sure nobody steals from them. However, doesn't that just give them the power to steal from another who is not allowed to protect themselves? And then of course there's the question about tyranny of government. If ONLY the cops (or other government groups) are allowed to own guns, then isn't that not only a violation of our second amendment rights, but also just a straight up forfeiture of protection? After all, the government is nothing but a group of powerful (mortal, fallible) individuals. People have the right to protect themselves.

Our right to own guns should not be stifled by people who have proven too irresponsible to hold that right. Instead, their rights should simply be revoked and they should be punished as individuals for any trouble they've caused. People care to own guns for a variety of reasons. Because those reasons aren't meant to intentionally harm others, we shouldn't expect that one's intention in owning guns is to commit a crime. Not only do guns not cause crime, but they help stop it. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck, handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes.

The point is that in this world there are people who can be identified as "prey." As the old saying goes, "God didn't make all people equal — Mr. Colt did." A 1985 survey by the Department of Justice of inmates across the nation reported that 56 percent of the felons agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." Statistics also show that banning guns only encourages crime. According to a study by SUNY-University at Albany criminal justice professor Colin Loftin, Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976, and by 1991 its homicide rate had tripled. Meanwhile, the national homicide rate rose only 12 percent [2].

Now, obviously my opponent realizes that law enforcement and the military need to have weapons. In that case, I think it's perfectly reasonable that citizens should be able to arm themselves with the same protection (as I said, to ensure that American freedom is protected). If you think that this is an unreasonable protection, we only have to look to American history to see why this concern is relevant. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act that made it illegal for citizens to speak out against the national government. During World War II, Japanese Americans - citizens and resident aliens alike - were stripped of their property and herded into concentration camps without cause or trial. Perhaps American freedom isn't as safe as we all thought [1].

So, that brings us back to Pro's proposal for gun control. He submits that only those handling money, convenient store owners and cops should be allowed guns. Well not only do people reserve the right to have a gun for reasons other then these, but gun shop owners, gun makers, gun collectors and the like all have the right to have their products bought and sold. This economy works on the basis of supply and demand. If people didn't supply these guns legally with current gun laws as they stand (the federal government requires gun store owners to perform background checks on all consumers wishing to purchase firearms already), then individuals would just buy these guns illegally on the black market. This would create a huge illegal market and expand the influence of corrupt organizations like the mafia and street gangs which would sell these firearms illegally.

Further, it kind of eliminates the purpose of a gun (safety and protection) to keep the limited from the people who need them or feel safer with them (since, as I've said, they've been proven to deter crime). People should be responsible and held accountable for how they utilize their right to bear arms. With that said, I'll send this debate back over to my opponent for now. Good luck!

[1] http://media.www.thebatt.com...
[2] http://www.mcrgo.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Animalwiz

Con

My thing is the more gun rights we allow others to have the more crimes there will be and the murders as well. I beleieve that just because the 2nd amendment say: you have the right to bear arms does not mean that when you turn the age you can go out and purchase guns. I can see if this country was invaded and others country's troops were in this country. But we are at. We should not allow Americans to have the right to purchse Military weapons. A small hand gun is fine.

The problem I have is many americans have Military size weapons and they are not or have never served their country at war.
Danielle

Pro

Con's Arguments:

1) If we allow people to carry guns, murder and crime will increase.

----> Actually it will DECREASE as I explained, cited and sourced in the last round.

2) The second-amendment shouldn't give people the right to bear arms.

----> Well... it does. And for many of the reasons I mentioned in the last round (unrefuted) including insurance against the tyranny of government, and adhering to the right of self-protection.

3) We should not allow citizens to purchase military weapons; only handguns.

Unfortunately this was never specified in R1. Also, I don't see how it follows that one can only commit crimes or murders with machine guns. One could easily do the same with a handgun which is why I don't consider this to be relevant. Plus, some people prefer rifles or other guns to hunt with.

Please extend all of my arguments from the last round.
Debate Round No. 2
Animalwiz

Con

(Myth) If we allow guns Murder and crimes will decrease?
(Fact) It will increase because more people will think that they have a Gun and can shot anyone they feel like just for the stake of having a gun.

If I am elected to the House or Senate I intend to repeal the second amendment to the extent that everyone is staified with it. The second amendment should read: You have the right to bear arms under the circumstance that you pass the written and physical firing exam. And one gun is permitted per house hold or person.

There is no need for a 35 year old to own a military gun. The perfect weapon for that 35 year old is a small hand gun. No pistol, or shot gun.
Danielle

Pro

Con begins by saying that it's a myth murder and crime rates will decrease if guns are legalized. Unfortunately, it's a statistic I cited, sourced and argued in R1 that went completely unaddressed despite my notation of it in the last round. Here is where I explained and proved that the legalization of guns leads to a decrease in murder and crime:

----> A 1985 survey by the Department of Justice of inmates across the nation reported that 56 percent of the felons agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." Statistics also show that banning guns only encourages crime. According to a study by SUNY-University at Albany criminal justice professor Colin Loftin, Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976, and by 1991 its homicide rate had tripled. Meanwhile, the national homicide rate rose only 12 percent [1].

So, as you can see, Pro's statement that this is a "myth" is incorrect, or at least was not backed up and proven by my opponent whereas my argument has been supported.

Next my opponent notes that he would like to re-write the second amendment. That's fine and dandy; however, if he's against gun rights (which the resolution implies), then having gun right requirements is contradictory. Nevertheless, this does not prove in any way that gun rights shouldn't exist (simply because Con wants a different amendment). He says that a 35 year old should only be allowed a small hand gun (randomly...) though that does not address my other arguments, including the fact that some people want hunting rifles. Nor does it answer my point that if his goal is to deter crime, that most crimes can and do occur with small (concealable) handguns.

Overall, Con has completely failed to negate the resolution, make any coherent arguments nor address and refute any of mine. I'd like to thank him for the debate and wish him good luck in the voting period - thanks.

[1] http://www.mcrgo.org...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mongoose 4 years ago
mongoose
"'(Fact) It will increase because more people will think that they have a Gun and can shot anyone they feel like just for the stake of having a gun.'

That's an opinion."

Not even. It's just an incorrect statement with no adherence to grammar.
Posted by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
And a really poorly supported opinion...
Posted by wmpeebles 4 years ago
wmpeebles
"(Fact) It will increase because more people will think that they have a Gun and can shot anyone they feel like just for the stake of having a gun."

That's an opinion.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Steelerman6794 4 years ago
Steelerman6794
AnimalwizDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tornshoe92 4 years ago
tornshoe92
AnimalwizDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 4 years ago
wmpeebles
AnimalwizDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jwljacl 4 years ago
jwljacl
AnimalwizDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by thatguy15 4 years ago
thatguy15
AnimalwizDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ProHobo 4 years ago
ProHobo
AnimalwizDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ArtTheWino 4 years ago
ArtTheWino
AnimalwizDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 4 years ago
ravenwaen
AnimalwizDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by comoncents 4 years ago
comoncents
AnimalwizDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 4 years ago
I-am-a-panda
AnimalwizDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05