Gun control legislation and deterring crime
Debate Rounds (3)
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a well known crusader who has spent millions of his own money on gun control efforts, called the NRA's idea for armed guards in schools "a paranoid vision of America."
But teachers appear to disagree with Bloomberg's assumption. Almost 90% said an armed police officer would improve safety in their schools, not make them less safe, according to the survey. (Sperry)
The statistic speaks for itself, and already school districts and towns have passed budget plans to keep kids safe in the school by using security guards and other security alarming systems. This money is well spent for the safety of the children attending schools all across America, and this perception is a real deterrent for criminals. A criminal will not try breaking into a school when multiple security guards are guarding the schools with firearms or alarming systems make it much more of an obstacle to complete their unjust attempt of committing a crime.
Sperry, Todd. "Survey: Teachers Don't Want to Carry Guns, Do Support Armed Guards." CNN. Cable News Network, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.
"How will gun control legislation help the law abiding citizen who is responsible with practicing their rights?" my opponent asks. The simple answer is that gun control legislation will for the most part get these guns off of the streets. I will not be naive and say that banning assault rifles will mean people will have no way to acquire them, because this simply isn't true. I also will not claim that banning assault rifles will solve our problem and prevent any further shootings, because it won't. But all it can do is help. The simple fact is that other than for hunting, there is no logical reason to own an assault rifle. One might say that they need it for "self protection", but unless a homeowner is facing a team of intruders in their home all armed to the teeth, a shotgun or pistol would do the job just fine. Seeing that there is no absolute need for these guns, why allow them to fill our streets and arm people who use them in mass shootings?
My opponent's ideas for solving this problem sound perfect, in theory. However, the implementation of armed guards at schools across our country is something that will never happen for one simple reason, money. Obviously 90% of teachers approve of something that will make them safer every day, but when teachers are being laid off because of financial troubles our country faces today, what makes you think we can afford to station armed guards at every school in our country?
The sad truth is that there are crazy people in this world who are capable of terrible things, and no one solution will be able to prevent their sick plots against children or even movie theater occupants without costing more money then our country is able to currently spend. Banning assault rifles would not fix the problem, but it would help. Getting as many guns like this off the street is the first step to solving the problem we face.
First off, in my first round argument I used an example of gun legislation deterring crime in the form of rocket launchers being illegal. My opponent responded to that example saying "This statement is irrelevant because the current legislation at hand is not based on rocket launchers, it is based specifically on assault rifles, and other various provisions that infringe the right to even obtain any firearm.". Meanwhile, the topic of this debate is "Gun control legislation and deterring crime", at no point in time did he specify a specific gun control legislation that we were discussing. Being that said, my rocket launcher example makes perfect sense when discussing "Gun control legislation" as a whole.
Secondly, his comment on my argument "contradicting" itself when I stated that gun control legislation in the form of banning assault rifles would significantly reduce the amount of these lethal weapons, but it would not completely fix the problem, makes no sense. Obviously, people will always be able to get what they want in some form or fashion, but banning assault rifles will make it significantly more difficult and dangerous to obtain an assault rifle. This was the only point I was making and it clearly doesn't "contradict" itself.
My opponent then moved to refute my point that there isn't a logical reason for owning an assault rifle claiming that "Owning an assault rifle for recreational purposes such as target shooting like many law abiding Americans do is a very acceptable and logical reason to obtain an assault rifle." While in some fashion this does make sense, the fact that people need to own these dangerous weapons in order to shoot targets with them is ridiculous. Gun ranges could have specific licenses allowing them to keep assault rifles in stock for customers to use on a gun range, simple solution. The simple fact is that the tiny amount of benefits that come from owning an assault rifle don't come close to outweighing the negative aspects that these guns being sold over the counter bring to society.
Moving on, my opponent cites the 2nd Amendment to the constitution which states "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". The problem with using this Amendment as a reason to maintain the legality of assault rifles is that the framers of our Constitution who only had access to single shot muskets had no way of knowing what technology would be available to United States citizens in today's world. These new technologies are "challenging our Constitutional categories in really dramatic ways," says George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen. "And what's so striking is that none of the existing amendments give clear answers to the most basic questions we're having today." Rosen's new book "Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change" details how technological changes that were unimaginable at the time of the Founding Fathers are challenging today's lawmakers. The clear truth is that while the Constitution is the backbone of our Country's laws, it requires stretching to compensate for a changing society.
My opponent clearly makes my point when he says " The amendment does not state what so ever a specific firearm that is to be obtained or not.". Automatic assault rifles and other dangerous weapons (such as rocket launchers) are outlawed in today's society for the same reasons that I am arguing regular assault rifles should be outlawed, they are unnecessary for the average citizen and are extremely dangerous.
And now to my last argument, my opponent is blatantly ignorant to the economical problems the United States' education system is going through. He claims " I for one opposed to my adversary find that placing guards at our schools is a very possible goal to reach... money can go towards having a few officers from police departments patrolling and guarding the schools" Once again I will say, this idea sounds perfect. However, the amount of money it would cost to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy. President Obama has recently enacted a heavily scrutinized plan that will "provide $25 billion to prevent layoffs and support hundreds of thousands of teacher and other education jobs." The amount of taxpayer dollars that this new plan will require is substantial to say the least, and any additional money added to the education budged unfortunately is unrealistic at this time. A Cleveland State University Economics professor claims that "having enough officers to fully protect schools would cost $23 billion", which is "half of what the federal government spends on K-12 education". Imagine that, wiping out half of the United States' education budget to fulfill what my opponent claims is "a very possible goal to reach", because we simply don't have enough money to add additional funds to our education budget. On top of this issue, even if we were to pay the bill and make our schools 100% secure, a shooter could simply move to targets such as movie theaters (which we have recently seen), or shopping malls. Unfortunately, we cannot have armed guards all over our Country, even though it is the ideal scenario from a security stand point.
Simply put, there is no sure-fire solution to our nation's security problem that isn't unrealistic economically. Outlawing these unnecessary weapons from society would not solve our problem 100%, but it would undoubtedly lead us in the right direction.
Furthermore, my adversary is attempting to clarify his/her statement of contradictory, but manages to contradict himself/herself even more. Stating that "Obviously, people will always be ale to get what they want in some form or fashion, but banning assault rifles will make it significantly more difficult and dangerous to obtain an assault rifle". My adversary is well aware that people will no matter what kind of legislation is passed, will be able to obtain an assault rifle, but still states that it will make it significantly more difficult to do. Well once again this type of legislation does nothing, but hurt the law abiding citizen who follows the laws. This only affects the criminals who already do not abide by the laws, hence criminals being labeled as criminals for the crimes that they commit, such as breaking a law of illegally obtaining an assault rifle, just like Adam Lanza had done.
I also had stated that there are multiple logical reasons to obtain a firearm when my adversary claimed that "other for hunting" there would be no logical reason to obtain an assault rifle. My adversary even admits that this makes sense, but claims that this fact to obtain them is "ridiculous". Well I find fault in this statement because an American citizen practicing their rights is not "ridiculous". These assault rifles are collectors items and used responsibly by a substantial majority of citizens and gun advocates, because they are fully aware of the immense power of this weapon's capabilities. "Gun ranges could have specific licenses allowing them to keep assault rifles in stock for customers to use on a gun range, simple solution". This is sure not a simple solution when the rights of law abiding Americans are infringed upon. "The simple fact is that the tiny amount of benefits that come from owning an assault rifle don't come close to outweighing the negative aspects that these guns being sold over the counter bring to society". How is it that an extraordinary amount of citizens obtain assault rifles, but very little crimes are done annually by them? The Federal Bureau of Investigations confirms statistics:
"There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records. In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles." (1)
A small amount of Americans are claiming assault rifles are a problem, but according to consistent crime statistics of much credibility, state otherwise. It states here that hammers, clubs, hands, and fists are more lethal than assault rifles. So does this mean we need to take hammers and clubs away because they cause a lot of crime? Of course we wouldn't because that would be an outrageous legislation considering hammers and clubs are used for various activities that are beneficial to society other than for crimes, such as hammers for construction purposes or clubs taking various forms as a golf club or a baseball bat. Hammers and clubs have various uses just as assault rifles have various uses. But hammers and clubs are not being legislated upon control but cause more crime annually than assault rifles do.
When my adversary states that the Framers of the Constitution "had no way of knowing what technology would be available to United States citizens' in today's world" is an uninformed assertion. Framers of the Constitution were well aware that as times change, everyone else in society changes. "The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change over time. But the application of those principles must evolve as society changes and as experience informs our understanding" (2). Of course it would be absolutely ignorant of anyone to have concrete laws that do not change overtime as mankind does. But the fact of the matter is the Framers of the Constitution developed core principles to uphold throughout our democracy. Being aware that legislation will take affect to adhere to the current situations of our times, the fact of the matter is that core principles are to be the foundation of the legislation. Therefore, the specific text in the 2nd Amendment is to not be altered, but the contemporary times that we are living in need to adhere to these principles for just and equal legislation. This does not make it okay to legislate against the people's will, because the Constitution allows flexibility within it's provisions.
Furthermore, to state that I am "blatantly ignorant" is an unnecessary statement due to the fact I am very aware of the economical situation of the United States' education system. The fact that our government pointlessly spends taxpayers' money for unnecessary entities, is a disgrace, and is so wrong. Examples of our country spending an astronomical amount of money on unnecessary entities is; The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it, the federal government once spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos, China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn"t stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China, the U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly, and the list goes on (3). So my adversary likes to state that arming guards at schools when 90% of teachers across America want them, "the amount of money to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy". By seeing where taxpayers' money goes unnecessarily, when it should be going into a program to help our own country is opposed to others is not impractical. So supposedly, it would cost $23 billion to do this according to a Cleveland State University Economics professor, but our country has spent millions on frivolous entities and not the safety of our country? If the money was not put into other countries, pointless research studies on responsible drinking for prostitutes, and a soccer field creating recreation for people plotting attacks on our country their whole lives, we can substitute this money into our schools. And my adversary stating what would we do for shopping malls and movie theaters? That's simple, because we have police already patrolling these areas, but there are no police guarding schools leaving them the most susceptible to crime.
In my closing statements, I will state that gun control legislation does nothing to deter criminals from the commission of crimes, because breaking the law is what they do. This legislation infringes upon the Constitutions' fundamental rights.
handywandy forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.