The Instigator
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
Pro (for)
The Contender
avianage
Con (against)

Gun control

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
avianage has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 403 times Debate No: 100724
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

MakeDebatingGreatAgain

Pro

I want to challenge you to a debate on gun control, to see if you have the knowledge to debate this topic, and because I'm new to this site like you. 1st round is acceptance, feel free to accept or decline the challenge, I'm just looking for a level opponent.
avianage

Con

I am up to this, and am glad to meet another new member. It'll be a bit of a difficult task for me, seeing as I am pro-gun control, but I am still willing to challenge myself to see from the other side of the debate.
Thank you for inviting me to debate this with you!
Debate Round No. 1
MakeDebatingGreatAgain

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I'm sorry for the misinterpretation, but I should have made the topic "Gun Rights" instead. Anyways, assume that I am against Laws on gun restriction, and my opponent is for. Now for my argument (Next round, my opponent will present his arguments, and he may also present rebuttals to mine):

I will start by generally defining gun control, which is the limitation or banning of ownership, sales, production, and use of firearms of any kind. The purpose of gun control is to prevent civilians from obtaining deadly, military grade weapons that can cause extreme destruction and mass manslaughter when used with criminal intent or used incorrectly/irresponsibly, so that the nation will be more protected from anarchy and murderers. When the second amendment of the US constitution [1] was written, firearms where simple, single shot, muzzle loading guns that could only do so much damage without numerous people using them collectively. However, with the advance of technology in the last 300 years, guns went from simple musket rifles, to assault rifles that can destroy a room full of people in seconds. It would be completely reasonable to limit the public's access to these massively destructive weapons, but gun control has been taken too far by many liberal agendas. The restriction of destructive firearms is on the federal level, but more strict regulations on less destructive, legal guns (such as handguns, traditional rifles, shotguns, etc.) is regulated by the states. State laws can vary greatly, and certain states (CA, NY, Washington DC, and others [2]) have so strictly regulated these legal weapons, that obtaining them for any reason (legal or not) is very difficult. This infringement of the second amendment is unacceptable to our human rights, makes America a target for terrorists (domestic and foreign), and leads to a totalitarian government, such as North Korea (where all guns are completely illegal) [3].

To begin, the second amendment was written into the constitution through the bill of rights, for the protection of the people from an over powerful government [4]. It was intended so that the rights of the people were protected, their right to defend themselves, and their right to bear arms [2]. These rights are important for citizens so that them have the capabilities to defend their own selves, property, and others from those who mean them harm, rather than solely depending on the government to protect them. If citizens can protect themselves, than they will have more freedom to do what they want to pursue, without the burden of being unprotected and reliant on the government to do so. However, this doesn't mean that services such as police departments and S.W.A.T. teams shouldn't be provided, as we still pay taxes to the government for them, and some threats are nearly impossible to defend ourselves (such as terrorist attacks and mob/gang attacks). Gun control is affecting this right to the point where is becomes difficult to defend ones self, with liberals wishing to ban weapons such as pistols [5] and higher caliber rifles, which are sufficient enough to defend ones self, but not so powerful as to become weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes, even these weapons are not sufficient, in the cases of terrorist and gang attacks, in which civilians may need ready access to higher tier weapons, such as high caliber rifles, burst fire rifles, ballistic knives, etc. These weapons can still be destructive, but are mostly illegal or require federal permits.

To the topic of terrorist attacks, civilians need to be able to stop these now more frequently occurring, progressively deadlier events [7] when police forces are not available at hand. If weapons were given only the requirement of a simple, but secure permit, than tragedies such as the 2015 San Bernardino Shooting may have been far less deadly. The shooters, an extremist couple, using legally purchased weapons (but illegally modified) to kill 14 innocent civilians and wound 22 more. None of the civilians at the inland center were carrying a weapon, and were completely helpless while the shooters mercilessly shot up the entire center, and (unsuccessfully) tried to plant bombs that would later kill emergency personnel at the scene [6]. This act of extreme violence may have had less severe consequences if one, or more, of the civilians was carrying at least some kind of weapon (as the terrorists ere wearing no bullet proof protection), but the gun control laws for California are some of the strictest in the nation [2], so it would be very difficult for a civilian to even own a gun, nevertheless carry one. This is a prime example of what occurs when civilians are unable to defend themselves due to laws that are "supposed" to protect us. All they really do is progressively make us easier to attack and target than in the past, were almost everyone owned a gun (because it was easy) and could pitch in to protect the country, which is exactly what America needs again to help stop such deadly atrocities.

For the final portion of my claim, I would like to say that we all can agree North Korea is a rotten place, with a tyrannical communist government that has complete control, that it loves to abuse, over the people. In North Korea, all guns (even air guns) are illegal, and owning them is subject to "stern consequences" [3]. Even South Korea bans the storage of guns in the household, and they must be stored at a police station. But applying the logic that gun control increases dependency on the government (as stated before), we can assume that this will contribute to a totalitarian government, since people will be unable to defend themselves if the government wants to gain total control. The North Korean government has banned guns so that order could be maintained and society controlled. This reasoning will definitely control a society, but as we can see with North Korea and politically similar nations throughout history, the effects will be very negative for the populations human rights, and general happiness [8]. If the American government slowly deteriorates our right to own guns and protect ourselves in order to protect society and keep order, they will follow the same logic as a totalitarian government. It's quite a no brainier that ending up like North Korea, and other tyrannical nations, is a very bad course of events. Yet, if we have the right to own weapons of our own instead of only the government owning them, than the power will be balanced between the people and the government, and this will allow for "we the people" to continue governing a democracy with being able to protect ourselves from a militant take over.

I understand that gun control plays a role of preventing any old chum from buying a deadly weapon, but the extent to which it is being taken and the logic behind it is flawed. We all need our rights to protect ourselves, our ability to stop terrorists, and our right to defend the free world from a government take over. Guns may seem brutal, violent, and best to avoid, but unfortunately, life is brutal. To survive in a brutal world, we need to be prepared, and able, to defend and protect.

Sources:

[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org...

[4]https://www.reference.com...

[5]https://en.wikipedia.org...

[6]https://en.wikipedia.org...

[7]https://intpolicydigest.org...

[8]https://en.wikipedia.org...
avianage

Con

Your first argument, saying that the strict regulations on guns in certain U.S. states is "...[an] infringement of the second amendment [and] is unacceptable to our human rights, makes America a target for terrorists (domestic or foreign), and leads to a totalitarian government, such as North Korea...." arises many questions from me. First off:
How is regulating guns "unacceptable to our human rights"? According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, human rights are "...norms that help protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses." I fail to see how owning a gun counts as a human right. Many successful (democracy) countries have stricter gun laws than the United States, and they are not being accused of human rights violations. Examples of these countries include the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Australia. I'll go further in depth to their gun laws and more in a later part of my argument, but my point here is that the majority of people in those countries do not consider the lack of guns a human rights violation. I would like to hear more from you on this statement, however.

In the same part of your argument, you mentioned that gun control laws lead to a totalitarian government, "such as North Korea." Guns are extremely hard to obtain in many different countries, to the point that guns are extremely rarely in citizens' possession. Countries that are like this include Sweden, the United Kingdom, and many other European countries, none of which are anywhere close to being as controlling as North Korea is with their citizens. Therefore, I think comparing the two is unfair and is a worst case scenario.(1)

Most mass shootings are done with handguns, which you are saying should not be banned(2). Also, I'd like to talk about the whole notion that guns will protect you in the case of someone attacking you.

Let's propose a hypothetical situation: Someone breaks into your house. Most people do not just have their gun lying around, loaded, ready to shoot. Leaving a gun out could lead to many incidents. If you lock your gun up and an intruder comes in, what are you going to do? Walk to the gun safe, unlock the safe, get the gun out, load the gun, and then, finally, shoot the intruder? By then, the intruder would have already done their damage. So, unless your gun is constantly on you, it isn't very useful -- the time that it would take to even retrieve it from another room would be too long.

On your third point, I'd like to ask, if it was so hard to obtain a gun in California, how did the shooters obtain them and how were they allowed to carry them?

On your final point, I'd like to reiterate that saying that simply making gun laws stricter will lead to a totalitarian government is a very, very worst case scenario way of thinking. That simple act will not immediately take away all the other freedoms we have. If we don't have guns, it's not like all of a sudden we will be relying on the government for every single other need. The majority of people who hunt animals do not rely on that as their main food source. Also, North Korea's totalitarian government did not begin with the banning of guns. When Korea parted at the end of WW2, North Korea went with Communist ideologies from the start, which included the banning of guns, but also included revoking many other freedoms from their citizens. In the end, the ownership of guns is not the single thing balancing the government and the people. We cannot simply rely on everyone owning guns to stop acts of terror. The government needs to take more measures to prevent these attacks before they even start.

I apologize if this argument seems a bit forced, as I had to rush quite a bit because I have been busy all weekend and did not have the time to work on it.

1. http://www.pbs.org...
2. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...
Debate Round No. 2
MakeDebatingGreatAgain

Pro

Thank you for replying to my argument instead of running out of time, which is why all my debates are 72 hours, so debaters will not forget about their debate. Anyways, onto my rebuttals.

In your first counter, you state that " I fail to see how owning a gun counts as a human right.". but I think that if you analyze the definition you gave than you can relate it to this quote "Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the 'natural right of resistance and self-preservation' subject to suitability and allowance by law" [1]. You may be thinking that the "subject to suitability and allowance by law" portion is contradictory to my argument, but in the case of the 2nd amendment, it states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", which exempts it from this part of Sir William's claim. Anyways, this right (the right to keep and bear arms) of self preservation and resistance is absolutely essential as a human right, for it protects us not only from criminals, but corrupt governments also. "The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is the people's right to possess armaments (arms) for their own defense" [2]. It will allow for citizens to fight back (just in case) if their government has destroyed their other human rights. It may not seem apparent that this is needed in current, modern day,1st world nations, but some day, inevitably, there will be an overpowering conflict caused intentionally towards the people, and it will be necessary that they are able to defend themselves. Besides, the governments of Sweden, Britain, and Australia (since it was owned by Britain) were once absolute monarchy, with the government being able to dictate anyone to do anything without question or the ability to be stopped. The only people who could overthrow these primitive systems where other monarchs, with the ability to buy armies, only to instate a new tyrannical dynasty.

Now to your rebuttal on mass shootings. You say that handguns are responsible for more mass shootings, and this may be true. However, when you reference that it will be hard to stop a burglar with the slow process of loading up a gun, I noted that if you used a pistol, which is best for the tight confines of a house and is quick to load/prepare, than you would avoid this problem and be better off. This is one reason why pistols shouldn't be banned / restricted more than other guns, due to them being more useful for defense.

And on your point about the San Bernardino shooting, the shooters obtaining the gun shows that even with extensive background checks and some of the harshest gun laws in the nation, the state failed to realize that granting them the guns was a major mistake. These restrictions are only affecting those who abide the law, and not criminals. They won't stop most criminals, and they will resort to black markets if they are unable to obtain a gun. The reason that the criminals could carry the guns was that they just disobeyed the law after obtaining the rifles. Criminals (terrorists even more so) are not going to follow laws, especially leading up to the crime they will commit, which is why they are called criminals. I'm sure the shooters weren't thinking, "I wonder how many laws we will break", but "How many people should we kill? To further add, the terrorists used rifles, not pistols, in this attack, which is why it was quite deadly. Also, the attack in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik used rifles (obtained legally and without a criminal record) to kill 70 people, which shows that pistols, although used more often, may be less dangerous (considering the killing power in rifle cartridges). [3] Pistols are more useful for defence than offence, which is why civilians need them the most

In my final rebuttal, I would like to explain that the North Korea analogy is associated with the inability of the people to defend themselves due to the lack of this right leading to the elimination of other rights. I should have mentioned before that the banning of guns DIDN'T lead to the lack of human rights within North Korea. However, my analogy was relating to the fact that this would likely happen if gun rights are completely eliminated, due to the people being unable to have a force based say in the government. A forced based say is in countries such as the Republic of the Congo (and even ancient nations such as Rome and Medieval Europe), where only those who have the power to afford weapons and armies can change the government. The low status civilians have no say or effect on the government, and it is left to survival of the fittest to determine the status of the government. In countries without gun rights, but the civilians still have political say (democracy) are right based, with the say of the civilians in the government is given to them by the government, which is a paradox. This idea is unstable, and could collapse to create societies in which the government takes control. All it takes is one tyrant to take over and remove the rights of the people, if they are unable to fight back or resist forcefully, (requiring the use of weapons and a cultural/individual knowledge of them), then this will be quite easy for them. The Roman republic fell after it became an empire, in which citizens had no say in the government. The politics of Rome were left to the powerful tyrants to battle over, as they were slowly allowing the nation to die off. "Various reasons for Rome's fall have been proposed ever since, including loss of Republicanism, moral decay, military tyranny, class war, slavery, economic stagnation..." [4]. The destruction of the republic gave civilians no power, removing their right say. If civilians are able to own guns (by a fundamental right, not a privilege) and other weapons, than the "insurance" will give them power in the force form, which gives them a definite ability to have influence over their government, rather that rights of influence given to them by the government.

We need gun rights so that we can not only have our own rights, and protect ourselves effectively, but protect our other rights on our own, signifying true freedom. And one last food for thought, If a right is given to you, is it a true right?

Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 10 months ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
dont know why it posted twice.....
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 10 months ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
Ok, thanks for telling me. If you want to redo this debate, just send a debate on the topic to me and I will accept.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 10 months ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
Ok, thanks for telling me. If you want to redo this debate, just send a debate on the topic to me and I will accept.
Posted by avianage 10 months ago
avianage
I ran out of time; I'm currently entering finals/standardized testing season in the school year so I don't have much time to debate. I didn't forfeit on purpose, simply, I was too busy, and I apologize.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 10 months ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
My opponent has forfieghted the round, but I am not sure if he forfieghted the entire debate, or just ran out of time. I am hoping he will reply to this, so I can at least know if I won this debate.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 10 months ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
Sorry about that, I didn't explain which side was which, but yes, I am for gun rights, and you will be against. Since you still want to debate I think it will be fine.
Posted by avianage 10 months ago
avianage
I've realized that I might have misinterpreted the topic of this debate and what sides we are both on. I was under the impression that your side is pro-gun control (therefore against the ownership of guns, gun rights, etc.) and that my side is anti-gun control (for gun rights, for the ownership of guns). After reading your profile and your sides on the big topics, I think I may have read this wrong. Either way, I am still up to debate this no matter what side I am on.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.