The Instigator
prodigyofaristotle
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
ConserativeDemocrat
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Gun Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
ConserativeDemocrat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 283 times Debate No: 93482
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

prodigyofaristotle

Pro

The Constitution gives us the rights to bear arms. Taking that away is unconstitutional.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

Thanks for creating this debate. I hope we can have an interesting debate about gun laws and rights.
First, I will start with the fact that more gun laws lowers gun violence. First, I will start in the US. States that have more fun laws, like background checks, difficulties in getting concealed carry permits and the like, have lower gun laws then states with loose gun laws. [1] Now let's look at other countries. First, look at Japan. They have extremely strict gun laws, and they banned all guns minus air rifles and shotguns. Their gun murder rate is 0.0 for every 100,000 people. They only had 11 gun murders in 2011; the most recent data. [2] Now let's look at Canada. They have strict gun laws. Their gun gun murder rate is .38 per 100,000 people, which is quite low. Now let's look at the US. The U.S. has some of the weakest gun laws in the developed world. Their gun murder rate is 3.43 per 100,000 people. [4] So this is strong evidence that more gun control equals less gun crime.

Now I will address your argument. Here is the full second amendment: "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."
Notice the, "... Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Part. This only gives the right to bear arms to part of a militia needed to defend the country. We don't need militias to defend our country, because we have a military. So not everyone gets the right to bear arms. Also, the second amendment says, "Arms." Arms doesn't only refer to firearms. If you restrict firearms, people can still have knifes, bats, crossbows and so on. Even if we interpret the second amendment to say, "Everyone can bear arms", you don't need a firearm, you can bear different arms. Finally, the second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload. Our guns include long range, high accuracy, fast RoF, and with 100 round clips. As the technology changes, the laws regarding tech need to change too.

Finally, even if the second amendment of the constitution was, "We the people have the right to keep and bear arms", restrictions like background checks, mental health checks, bans on certain guns, and so on will not hurt law- abiding citizens' chances to get a gun, only potentially bad people's chances, which is good. Do we really want convicted felons to get guns? No.

I have shown that gun laws are complely legal and help reduce gun crimes. I await my opponent's response.

[1] https://img.njdc.com...
[2] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
[3] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
[4] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Debate Round No. 1
prodigyofaristotle

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. I look forward to it.

I will start off by agreeing with you, to some point. Background checks and restrictions are completely necessary and should be forced. But guns should not be and can not be taken away from law-abiding citizens according to the constitution. It is true that with more guns, gun related crimes would be more common. That is obvious. It does not mean that taking away guns prevents crimes. Criminals will always find a way to get guns. If they do not, then they will just kill people with knives or other weapons. Taking away guns only makes sure that good citizens can not protect themselves. Let us look at the constitution again. It clearly says that the right of the people to bare arms can not be infringed. This states that we have the rights to guns. Now, the militia. A militia is a non-military force comprised of normal citizens. The whole reason it says this in the constitution is so that we can form a militia and protect ourselves. This includes protecting ourselves from the government and the military in the event that they take away our unalienable rights. How can we protect ourselves from people with guns if we only have knives, bats, and crossbows? We would not be able to.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

Well, I guess you concede the first part of my argument.

"Criminals will always find a way to get guns. If they do not, then they will just kill people with knives or other weapons"
- Yes, if you restrict guns, criminals will still get them, but it will be harder and the amount of gun violence will go down. Just look at Australia. [1]

"Taking away guns only makes sure that good citizens can not protect themselves."
- Only .02% of guns are used for this purpose. That is insignificant. Plus, for every 32 gun deaths, tuhere is one justifyable murder. Finally, for every one justifyable murder, 896 guns end up in the hand of criminals (They're stolen). So your point is misleading. [2]

"It clearly says that the right of the people to bare arms can not be infringed."
- In the context of a militia.

"The whole reason it says this in the constitution is so that we can form a militia and protect ourselves."
-From what? This was written when the government would rely on militiamen to protect their towns and national borders. We have police and a stronger military now. This is just outdated.

"This includes protecting ourselves from the government and the military in the event that they take away our unalienable rights."
- If the government decided to take over, your little hunting rifle will do absolutely nothing against tanks, bombers, and helicopters, even if you are in a militia.

"How can we protect ourselves from people with guns if we only have knives, bats, and crossbows? We would not be able too."
- As I pointed out before, 1 justifiable homicide for every 32 gun deaths. From 2004-2015, there have been over 325,000 gun deaths. This means that there have been less then 11,000 justifiable homicides by guns in the past decade. Would you rather have those 11,000 stay alive, or really less then that, look at cases like George Zimmerman, or have over 325,000 Americans alive? [3]

My opponent conceded the first part of my argument, and agrees that we need
gun laws. I also have rebutted all his points. Good luck!

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.latimes.com...
[3] http://www.politifact.com...-/
Debate Round No. 2
prodigyofaristotle

Pro

Yes I agreed with you about gun laws, but that does not weaken my claim or position. I stated we have rights to guns and that should not be infringed.

During Hitler's reign, he took all the guns away from citizens. Do you know what happened next? Aryan soldiers raped whoever they wanted and they took whatever they wanted. I do not care if it is illogical to think that I can fight off a corrupt government with my "little hunting rifle" but I would want to protect myself no matter what. A militia is made of ordinary citizens, it is not the same as the military. In the end, the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Claiming otherwise is wrong.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

Thanks for creating this debate!

"Yes I agreed with you about gun laws, but that does not weaken my claim or position. I stated we have rights to guns and that should not be infringed"
-Agreeing with background checks and the like will deny certain peoples' right to guns. So it absolutely weakens your position.

"During Hitler's reign, he took all the guns away from citizens."
- No. The Nazi's actually weakened gun laws. And, many Jews had guns during the Holocaust. This claim is false. It also proves that more guns won't stop a tyrannical government. [1]

" I do not care if it is illogical to think that I can fight off a corrupt government with my "little hunting rifle" but I would want to protect myself no matter what."
-So you are ok with tens of thousands of your fellow citizens dieing each year, just so you can have it if the U.S. decides to enslave its' citizens? That won't happen. Why? Because Canada, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Australia, Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Greece, South Korea, Taiwan, and many more won't be ok with the U.S. becoming Nazi Germany. The U.S. has a powerful military, but it can't beat the other 194 countries (Minus NK) who wouldn't be ok with the U.S. becoming tyrannical.

"A militia is made of ordinary citizens, it is not the same as the military."
-And? I never claimed that. I said the constitution only give the right to bear arms to members of a milita, like the National Guard. As I stated before, we don't need a militia, because we have a military.

"In the end, the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Claiming otherwise is wrong."
-Nope. It gives the right to bear arms, not firearms, but arms, to members of a militia, like the National Guard.

I will repost some of my arguments that you ignored.

Only .02% of guns are used for defense. That is insignificant. Plus, for every 32 gun deaths, there is one justifiable murder. Are you ok with that? Finally, for every one justifyable murder, 896 guns end up in the hand of criminals (They're stolen). [2]

From 2004-2015, there have been over 325,000 gun deaths. This means that there have been less then 11,000 justifiable homicides by guns in the past decade. Would you rather have those 11,000 stay alive, or really less then that, look at cases like George Zimmerman, or have over 325,000 Americans alive? [3]

The second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload. Our guns include long range, high accuracy, fast RoF, and with 100 round clips. As the technology changes, the laws regarding tech need to change too.

I have shown that more gun laws wik work and will reduce gun violence, by using real world data. I have also rebutted my opponent's argument that the constitution gives us the right to own guns. Vote Con!

Links:
[1] http://www.politifact.com...
[2] http://www.latimes.com...
[3] http://www.politifact.com...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: well argued CD, now if you'll become a liberal democrat you'll be perfect!

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MissLuLu 4 months ago
MissLuLu
prodigyofaristotleConserativeDemocratTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I give Pro the point for S&G because Con had several spelling mistakes throughout, though it wasn't anything serious. Before and after the debate I agreed with Con, who also provided many points and sources to reinforce the claims that gun restriction cannot harm the US. Pro did not provide sources, and in fact made a severely incorrect claim regarding Nazi Germany. Conduct is tied because I did not feel that either of the debaters were intentionally rude toward the other.
Vote Placed by spencercrat123 4 months ago
spencercrat123
prodigyofaristotleConserativeDemocratTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S&G was solid on both sides although I point out to Con that it's spelled "justifiable". Pro failed to use any sources or evidence to back up claims like : "Criminals will always find a way to get guns. If they do not, then they will just kill people with knives or other weapons." Con rebutted strongly by providing examples i.e. Australia that show gun control makes it harder and drives down gun violence. Con also showed guns were rarely used for self defense, are ineffective in combating government tyranny in comparison to foreign countries intervention, and dispelled the claim about Nazi gun laws. Pro failed to defend against all of these and chose to dispute wording of the Constitution. No one has the end-all interpretation of the Constitution except the Supreme Court so Pro's "Claiming otherwise is wrong" is ineffective. I found Con's comparison of guns to tech interesting and his argument about people dying at the cost of Pro's "peace of mind" was powerful.
Vote Placed by supersosa 4 months ago
supersosa
prodigyofaristotleConserativeDemocratTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro your arguments were solid, but you didn't use sources and had iffy grammar. Con, your point with the lower crime stats really swayed me and pro didn't do enough to rebut it.