Gun control will make places safer
Debate Rounds (3)
I thank my opponent for offering this debate topic. Ill get straight to it and try to be brief. Since the gun-control issue is of major significance in America right now, and obviously doesn't apply to other countries that already have gun control, I will argue from the perspective of gun control in America.
Gun control is doomed to inefficacy because the easy access to weaponry and safeguards against overly-invasive policing would only serve to create a bureaucratic nightmare that would have too many holes. It is nigh impossible to stop people from obtaining and using a gun if they are committed. Furthermore, it would hassle citizens looking to carry arms for non-malevolent purposes.
As "concealed carry" weapons are already an established product, there are a variety of arms designs that would allow a person to hide a gun on their person. This is well known to everyone, and well publicized, with a community of support. Any person looking to discretely arm themselves would know to obtain a concealable gun. The only way that people could be prevented from carrying these into places would be invasive stop-and-frisk style policies where police would need to search people constantly. This would not only be incredibly inefficient but a violation of our constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
III.EASE OF ACCESS
The illicit trade of arms is estimated to account for up to 20% of all arms trade. For a multi-billion dollar trade such as that of the US, that could mean hundreds of thousands of unregistered guns exchanging hands. There is already a massive infrastructure for this trade in the criminal world which is already illegal, yet the government has been unable to stem. Furthermore, with the advent of 3D printing technologies, the already relatively simple process of manufacturing a weapon has been made nearly autonomous. Once printers are optimized for cost, anyone could create a simple disposable gun. Trying to impose gun control only incentivizes people to use these illicit methods, as there is no reason to want a stable long term gun if it is illegal or overly difficult to obtain one.
IV. RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP
The second amendment is often quoted as the basis for not restricting gun control.
" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
This clearly is written constitutional law allowing not only for the posession, but also the carrying of arms by citizens. Any attempt to subvert this is to subvert the basis of our constructed society. If we ignore the basis of all the laws in the nation then what significance does any law have? As government itself is intended for the betterment of society, which to an extent makes people "safer", then supporting its continued existence also would in theory be working towards making places safer.
V. CONCLUSION AND REFERENCES
This concludes my opening arguments. I await my opponents response, and wish him luck in this debate.
I would like to say after the Connecticut shooting we all became more silent then ever after the tragedy and had nothing to say about guns. People are saying the right to bear arms and to defend themselves. Here is the consequences of keeping a firearm in you household and how gun control would be able to help.
- Keeping a fire arm in your household can increase a risk of highly shootings heres some links to support it.
The reason it is able to increase highly shootings because showed in both links the 9 year old in hills burg brought a gun to his elementary school and his father had guns in his own house hold. There was no injuries but the boy got arrested.
Another thing I found on the link is that a 11 year child brought a gun to school and when he brought it he said he was using it for self defense. And you give the second amendment to give rights for a child to bring guns to school? And of course he was arrested because of the possession of a firearm which was one of the laws in U.S.
Nancy Lanza had many guns in her house but looked what has happened to a school in possession of firearms. The only people I would say the second amendment goes to is people like cops and people in the armies
-Gun control decreased crime
* Before you all shout you don't believe me I would like to say that I will give you many examples of things that support with two links
In my link Japan has stricter gun laws and crime and homicide rate is very low. Just like I said if the second amendment is right and gun control sucks how come in Japan the crime rate is low then U.S.A? And gun control is to stop all assault weapons like really citizens don't need ak-47 to protect themselves so it really makes no sense to state that gun control sucks because you ban all guns.NO!! we are saying this so there will be less gun victims and less homicide and so gun related crime could decrease. And Europe has less crime and it is more safer because of the law enforcements of guns.
:You state in the intro with gun control people are able to still hold a gun
Sorry to say it to you but it will be hard for criminal to obtain guns I would like to say because there will be many back round checks and if you think outlawing guns will not do anything and they can still get them on black markets they wont be able to because in the book Auticity of Hope by Obama or if that's what it is called on the chapter for page 383 he tries to make a plan to get rid of black markets.
Like I said the second amendment goes for cops and military because a boy states he defends himself with a gun and brings to school a eleven year old and watch what happens he got arrested. Do you think he should not have got arrested just because of the amendment? Exactly and Nancy Lanza had guns to protect herself and she was a gun addict but what happens is her son brings it school and shoot 20 children. The second amendment should be more stricter.
Guns are programed to kill and with one single bullet a life is gone and there is no way to bring that person back. Antiq Hennis only lived 1 year and died in his stroller just because of a gun shot that was missed
I am waiting for my opponent to give his opening argument, but I will thank him for his effort in his argument
A free video
Thank you for your prompt response Pro.
I.CHILDREN WIELDING GUNS
Im afraid your first address was cut off, so I can't watch the video, but it seems you are refering to cases of children carrying around firearms. The reason for penalties on children bringing guns to school are two-fold.
1. Minors are not entitled to the same benefits under the law as adults. Legally they are not deemed emotionally developed enough to consider the implications of their actions because your frontal lobe does not fully develop till your twenties. As such, laws often apply differently to minors than adults. See things like drinking age requirements, criminal prosecutions, etc. for evidence of this. Specifically, Child Access Prevention laws exist specifically to address this. Children are barred from the unsupervised posession and operation of firearms. If at a shooting range or hunting ground under the advisment of a legal guardian, they are allowed guns because there is proper instruction.
2. Guns in any capacity are not allowed in schools. This is not a policy which needs to be implemented, because it already exists. Any institution, private or government owned, may at its own discretion allow or bar the possession of any object it sees fit. In the same way that you currently are not allowed to bring guns into airports or court houses, you can not bring them into any building that forbids it of its own accord. This is fair because it is the choice of an individual to relinquish their firearm or choose not to enter an establishment, but it is not mandated as a blanket rule across the entire nation.
The responsibility is on the actual owners of guns who chose to purchase one to keep theirs secure. Parents should invest in gun lockers, as should all gun owners, to keep them from being easily taken. To ban parents from being allowed guns because their children might take them would be to punish parents for attempting to start a family, which is a cruel policy to implement.
II. GUNS AND CRIME RATE
The article on Japan you show brings up the question of correlation but does not prove causation. Crime is a complicated topic of study, and there are many possible socio-economic factors which contribute to it. One country alone does not prove guns are good or bad because Japanese culture is radically different than other nations, so any number of things could be the cause of low crime rates.
I direct you instead to a Harvard University study on correlation between Homicide and Suicide rates and gun ownership. The section beginning on page 670, "More guns, LESS crime?" clearly details how on average, increased gun ownership not only fails to cause more crime, but in fact is shown to reduce rates. The reasoning behind this is obvious: Guns are a deterrent. Throughout history we have used the threat of violence to curb people's more selfish tendencies. Capital punishment and in older times corporal punishment are used to scare possible criminals away from their actions. Following World War II America and Russia prevented further outright warfare using the threat of mutual destruction i.e. the Cold War. It could be argued that these were difficult times due to the constant fear of possible war, but the fact is, neither nation was willing to risk their own demise.
Guns are a great equilizer because no one is immune. No one can stand against an opponent armed with a gun and not fear he may die. Violent crimes like muggings involve intimidation and the use of force, which leads predators to go after victims they believe defenseless. Even a young 120 lb woman facing a 220 lb attacker can defend herself appropriately if armed. On the flip side however, guns do not ensure victory if both parties are armed. Therefore attackers cannot feel assured of their victory if they are armed. The presence of guns as a factor throws the odds of a confrontation into such uncertainty that no one can safely engage in conflict without risk, which in turn dissuades people from starting such conflicts to begin with.
III. RESPONSE TO REBUTTALS
1."in the book [Audacity] of Hope by Obama...on chapter for page 383 he tries to make a plan to get rid of black markets."
This is INCREDIBLY wishful thinking. The Black Market is not something you can "get rid of" so easily. You may as well just set your goal to stopping all people from committing violent crime, because then you won't need to worry about guns. So long as there exists contraband that is illegal or restricted to trade openly, there will be profiteers willing to subvert the law for profit. Further restricting arms trade only makes that market more profitable and thus incentivizes people to pursue it. The more you restrict legal guns, the more illegal guns will pop up.
2. I addressed this earlier but I will reiterate breifly. Children are not to have guns under current law unsupervised. They do not receive full benefits under the law until they are legally deemed adults and capable of both understanding their actions fully and accepting the possible consequences. If you are going to ban Nancy Lanza from owning a gun because of her son's illness, what you are saying is this: You had a child with mental complications, so we are going to punish you for choosing to try to cope with his issues and raise him instead of abandoning him. Because you already have greater issues than most single middle class parents, we are going to further restrict you because of something you had absolutely no choice in". She should have gone to greater lengths to ensure her son couldn't take her guns, but her lapse in judgement there does not justify barring security for everyone else.
IV. CONCLUSION AND REFERENCES
I've addressed both my opponents major arguments and responded to his criticisms. I await his response.
Gohan12345 forfeited this round.
My opponent hasn't added anything in his last round. As I have nothing to respond to and no new evidence to present, Ill simply present a closing argument.
Guns are a tool. A tool designed to cause harm, yes, but a tool nonetheless. No different than an axe or a knife in its ability to take innocent life if that is the intent of the user. But at the same time, it can be used productively as well. Hunters use guns to provide food in a more humane manner than mass farming that tortures animals. Sportsmen use guns a form of recreation shooting skeet. Policemen use guns as a deterent to crime by ensuring criminals are aware that no one is defenseless.
We in America live in a nation that purports to exist in the name of liberty in equality. But we know that is a goal, not our truth. We have a long bloodied history of those with the most power taking from those who could not fight back. The Native Americans were nearly wiped out and African Americans spent centuries in subjugation. These groups were technologically outmatched and as a result were dominated in shameful eras of our nation. Even today, as we stand as the self proclaimed defenders of freedom, there are those who call us tyranical and warmongering. That we abuse lesser developed nations and force them to our will.
The only form of peace that ever exists is one of mutual threat. Where neither side is willing to fight because their victory is not assured. True, this often leads to conflict and tension for a time. This is what we are experiencing now. A period where there is an instability as everyone and anyone can suddenly obtain a weapon and feel powerful. But after such a period of tension comes a detente. One only need look at our relationship with Russia to see this. Yes, we remain adversarial, but after years of showdowns and standoffs we realize that we are too equal for either side to win, and so we accept a wary state of peace.
On the other hand, looking to the middle east we see what happens when shifting powers constantly tip the balance. For thousands of years opposing groups have clung to a belief that if they only hold out long enough the advantage will become theirs and they will win. That elusive promise of total victory drives them to fight on because in time it may be them who holds all the cards. Whether its a true imbalance of power or a percieved one, the strongest always seek to dominate the weak.
Clearly we see that the way to stop these conflicts is to equalize the people. Put everyone at the same level, beholden to the same ultimate truth: Death comes to us all, and it comes indiscriminately. A chilling and morbid tone to end on, sure, but one that is necessary for everyone to understand. Life is only precious when we realize how easily it is taken from us. The threat of violence is one that we would all like to forget, but sometimes fear is necessary because empathy comes from misery. Arming yourself not only gives you the confidence of knowing you have power, but it reminds you of the gravity of the fire you play with.
Ultimately, you need to have some faith in humanity and its ability to grow into something better. If you don't believe in the idea of improving who you are, of making this a better world, then maybe it would be better to force people into line and deprive them of any choice to do wrong. But I believe that if there truly is such a thing as free will, the best chance we have to make this a better world is to challenge ourselves to make that choice. To do good because it is the right option, not our only option. But that can only happen if we can trust enough to give eachother a chance. If you believe this can be a better world, don't try to hold humanity down. Dont tell the world that it can't be trusted. Don't vote for gun control.
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.