Gun rights
| Started: | 1/9/2012 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 543 times | Debate No: | 20317 |
 Pro  Con I accept. Since Pro didn't really clarify what we're arguing about, I'd like to offer a less ambiguous resolution: "Gun rights are good." In other words, this debate won't just be limited to the legal recognition of gun rights under the U.S. Constitution. Rather, this debate will center around the broader question of whether gun rights should exist at all. Either side can make any argument they want - moral, political or legal. Good luck to Pro! |
 |
|
Pro I would like to add if I have a foot note that = some if not all of that was from the source, so give credit (or some of it) to that site. Just to avoid plagiarism issues. C1: US Constitution (only applies to america) Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm? Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. {1} The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. {2} However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. {3} C2: More guns less crime. The federal "assault weapon" ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. {4} This says once the assault rifle ban expired, murder has dropped. Now this is just tone of many studies, this is an interesting correlation. In my opinion a lot of evidence to my case, however I will provide a few more studies and or facts, just to make this "secure". However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. {5} I find this interesting too as different FBI stats show another correlation, when guns sales rise crime (usually) drop. Now why is this? My theory also many others is that if people are armed they won't commit the crime as it is possible you can fight back. I will provide a another study, then next contention: More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott�€™s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. {6} By the way it's a good read. I used to be skeptical until this very throughout in depth analysis. So even if you disagree with I said above, just read it. Just a suggestion. C3: Why people use guns I know you will pull out the "hey gun owners will kill people", so why do they own a gun? Here is a gallup poll: Protection against crime like 64% Target shooting 71% Hunting 64% go to my source for more info. Yes you can choose mutiple answers. That's why it = more then 100%. So overall the reasons are practical. It is a sport to own a gun. C4: Gun accidents are rare. Actually fatal gun incidents are quite rare, they seem common as these incidents are rare, no one cares if you fall: In Targeting Guns, Dr. Kleck concludes in part, "Most gun accidents occur in the home, many (perhaps most) of them involving guns kept for defense. However, very few accidents occur in connection with actual defensive uses of guns. Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault. Gun accidents, then, involve a rare and atypical subset of the population, as both shooters and victims. They rarely involve children, and most commonly involve adolescents and young adults." {8} Total accidents a year are 600. Automobile? 43,000. So you will probably use this argument, but the thing, if this is a reason to ban guns then it should be a bigger reason ban cars. SP you might say "people die accidentally" I will say "people die in cars. SO if that is your reason lets ban cars" That argument doesn't logically work. As rare as fatal gun accidents are among young children, their actual frequency is probably overstated. Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck suggests that some fatal gun accidents may actually be the culmination of a history of child abuse, in other words intentional homicides. {8} So now you will try to point out it said it was suicidal, so banning guns would lower the incidents of gun suicides. Well yes gun suicides would fall, suicides would remain. The Kid could try to overdose on medicine, stab himself, steal his parents car keys and drive off a bridge, he could still do suicide if he wanted to regardless. C5: Keen saw Georgia This goes with the more guns less crime. In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. {9} In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge. Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide. "It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years." {9} So forcing guns upon people here dropped crime. A huge benefit. C6: benefits of firearms Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected �€" not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000." [10] SO basically allowing allowing guns reduces accidents and crime. C8: economic benefits of gins Well it helps ILLEGAL markets: If the government strictly regulates legal gun production, then production will simply continue illegally in the black market. {11} However, in the black market the risks of producing are much higher. Getting arrested, fined, having property confiscated, or going to jail are all risks of engaging in illegal gun production. This increased risk will cause the supply of guns to fall and the price to rise. {11} So basically controlling them wouldn't solve the problem. Here are the predicted downfalls of the california gun laws: The NSSF estimates that the three bills would cost California $35.7 million in lost retail sales. {12} So it would hurt the economy as a whole legal industry would die. No space for conclusion. PS: it deleted my sources, so they may be outa order. sources: http://www.usconstitution.net... {1} http://en.wikipedia.org... {1} http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... {3} http://www.nraila.org... {4} http://www.nraila.org... {5} http://press.uchicago.edu... {6} http://www.gallup.com... {7} http://www.guncite.com... {8} http://www.rense.com... {9} http://archive.newsmax.com... {10} http://libertariananarchy.com... {11} http://www.personalliberty.com... {12} Con To clarify, we aren’t debating about whether guns are good. In a controlled environment, I can even agree that guns can be awesome. [1] I disagree, however, that gun rights are a good idea. To the contrary, enshrining a “right” for every individual to actually own deadly weapons is incredibly stupid and dangerous. 1. More guns leads to more violent crime The most obvious reason there shouldn't be a right to gun ownership is the simple fact that guns facilitate violent crime. International studies have shown that homicide rates are strongly correlated with firearm availability. [2] The United States - with some of the most lax gun laws in the world - not surprisingly has one of the highest murder-per-capita rates. The explanation for this isn't very complicated. A criminal with a gun is obviously far more dangerous than a criminal with an inferior weapon. Guns empower would-be criminals to attempt crimes they otherwise wouldn't. Guns also act as a deadly catalyst in confrontational situations that would otherwise result in a mere fight. With guns, drunken arguments can escalate into homicide at the blink of an eye. It comes as no suprise, then, that almost all police unions support stronger gun control laws. 2. More guns leads to more suicides The second argument against gun rights is the fact that gun ownership dramatically increases the likelihood of successful suicide attempts. My opponent argued that people can attempt to commit suicide by a variety of means, but guns present the most effective method of suicide. While more than 90% of suicide attempts using a gun are successful, the success rate for jumping from high places was only 34%, while the success rate for deliberate drug overdoses was only 2%. [3] Again, with its notoriously lax gun laws, it comes as no surpise that the United States has the highest per capita suicide rate in the world. [4] 3. Guns provide little redeeming value to justify their danger As the statistics from my first argument demonstrate, widespread gun ownership causes far more crime that it actually deters. My opponent bears the burden of showing otherwise, but he hasn't. 4. There are safer alternatives to gun ownership My opponent mentioned that people own guns for (1) protection, (2) target shooting, and (3) hunting, but those needs can be fulfilled in safer alternatives. For example, people can still go target shooting or hunting by temporarily renting weapons from a facility. And people could protect themselves through home security systems or self-defense classes. In any event, clamping down on the availability of guns (as police unions strongly support) makes people safer regardless of what safety measures they take on their own. 5. Gun ownership is not a human right In the last round, my opponent pointed out that “the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” While I wouldn’t characterize a bitterly divided 5 - 4 decision as a “definitive” holding [5], my opponent is indisputably correct that private gun ownership is a right currently protected by the U.S. Constitution But why does that matter? The same Founding Fathers who wrote the Second Amendment also drafted another provision requiring states to return fugitive slaves back to their owners, [6] so the U.S. Constitution can hardly be considered an infallible authority on the nature of liberty or justice.
Sources: [1] [2] http://www.gun-control-network.org...; [3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...; [4] [5] [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] |
 |
|
Pro Hey I need you to accept my friend request i to PM you about this debate. R1: More guns lead to more violent crime I disagree here. Here is why: And as FBI crime reports and law enforcement and academic studies conclude, the self-evident truth is that more guns clearly equals less crime. Where there are more guns per capita, violent crime goes down, particularly crimes of assault, like rape, burglary, and robbery. This is good. [1] John Lott, in "More Guns, Less Crime," explains that crime fell by 10 percent in the year after the laws were passed. A reason for the drop in crime may have been that criminals suddenly worried that their next victim might be armed. [2] In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, almost half of all burglaries occur when residents are home. But in the United States, where many households contain guns, only 13 percent of burglaries happen when someone_s at home. [2] Now let me explain the relevance of that last part, this indicates more guns = less crime. This means they case the houses in the US, but just go into the ones in the UK, now why does this matter? In John lotts book he hypothesis they are afraid of getting shot so thy wait until the owner leaves, but then he proves his point. He interviews criminals asking them the reasons they did not break into houses during the day, many did say it was because of guns. [3] the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban. [4] Crime rose AFTER the gun control laws. SO gun control doesn't work, more guns = less crime. R2: Guns lead to more suicides From 1991 to 2009, the total violent crime rate declined more than 40% to a 35-year low, and the murder rate declined by half to a 45-year low. Both declined more than six percent more in the first half of 2010. [5] Then it mentions the rise in gun ownership. Murder has a sub category of suicide. So this indicates guns=/= the cause of suicides. The weakness of the link between gun ownership and suicide should be obvious even to a two-year old, but if Butterfield shows any understanding of the absurdity of his claims, it is overshadowed by his zeal to paint gun ownership as detrimental to mental health and stability. [6] SO the evidence is weak and ignores other factors. Then it shows more suicides happen in rural areas where gun ownership is higher, BUT they miss on factor, income. Their income and lifestyle cause stress and agony. Also just because with a gun is easier doesn't mean it is more effective. If you ban guns people could just overdose on legal or illegal drugs for suicide. [6] Some of that was from the source some of that was from me. R3: Guns provide little redeeming value to justify danger False: American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year. [7] So they are used 2.5 million times in self defense every year, Now does it work? 98% of the time when a gun is shown the attack stops no shot fired. [8] This means no training is required, 98% of the time you are safe. So it works at least 98% of the time. So IT DOES make YOU safer. There are specific examples of guns saving lives, 01/14 Houston, TX Resident Shoots & Kills One of Two Armed Home Invaders [9] That source has more info on other people too. R4: alternatives to guns False on the police thing: Most cops are for second amendment [10] National Association of Chiefs of Police conducted a mail survey of 15,000 sheriffs and police chiefs in 1996, 93 percent said they approved of law-abiding citizens arming themselves for self-defense. [11] The police are for guns in self defense. Also a gun IS the most effective tool for defense. Will a crowbar do the job? Maybe, will a knife? Maybe, will a pepper spray? Maybe. But a gun, will at least work 98-97% of the time, as most people run away from the site of a gun, and the extra 2% means shoot. A gun is the most effective self defense tool. [12] Also: Shotguns are the most effective ant felon device ever made [13] R5: Gun ownership is not a human right Banning gun IS a human rights violation: In other words, gun control actually steals part of our humanity. How much worse of a human rights violation can exist than one that actually separates the “human” from the “rights”? [14] Now why are guns a human right as the source suggests? Self defense. Guns ARE used as defensive tools 2.5 million times a year, and work more then 98% of the time. Banning guns basically takes away your right to defense. Now I must prove self defense as a right: The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force. [15] Defense is a right [16] Guns are used as self defense, bought for self defense, and self defense is a right. If defense = a right, and guns create defense then there is a right to guns. Also for Americans the constitution. You also say the constitution is invalid as they used slavery, but do you consider the 1st amendment invalid? the 8th? the 5th? Or is it just the second because guns are scary. You claim the constitution is invalid, but only one part basically. If it is invalid then we are not allowed to speak freely, have no torture towards US citizens etc. So saying the constitution is invalid is basically pissing on the rights you and I enjoy. =conclusion= Guns have benefits and the right to self defense exists. Banning guns takes away their benefits and a right. Vote pro. sources: http://www.usnews.com... [1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [2] "More guns less crime" 1997 version [3] http://www.justfacts.com... [4] http://www.nraila.org... [5] http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com... [6] http://www.rense.com... [7] "No guns for Jews" [8] (pro gun Jewish group looking into their history and gun control) http://gunssavelives.net... [9] http://www.leaa.org... [10] http://archive.newsmax.com... [11] My front sight firearms training institute instructor. [12] http://www.humanevents.com... [13] http://www.humanevents.com... [14] http://en.wikipedia.org... [15] http://www.a-human-right.com... [16] Con ** Plagiarism committed by Pro ** |
 |
|
Pro I said first argument to avoid plagiarism issues I will put footnotes next to paragraphs that are c/p'd. so that was the format, footnote = cp in this debate. Re ready first arguments for info. Also plagiarism =\= I lose sources or s/g. Usually only conduct, yet according to my rules on plagiarism in this debate I said footnote=their work. So I clarified trying to avoid this fuss. For the bad response don't take off Pm me of you want detail for this short post. Do not deduct conduct for this as my reason makes sense. The reason.= long story short my mom is mean thinks I am addicted to DDO so she lOcked my computer, so I will not debate on DDO until then. Vote pro If my opponent chooses not to respond and just has a small Post then I thank him. Vote pro Con Since my opponent didn't have access to a computer last round, I'll make my final round brief. First, I would like to address his arguments made in defense of his plagiarism. Afterward, I'll wrap up with the one argument I couldn't make in Round 3 due to character constraints. 1. Pro's weak arguments in defense of his plagiarism Pro explains that he introduced his own citation rule in Round 2 to "avoid plagiarism issues," but this doesn't eliminate the basic obligation to at least QUOTE entire sentences lifted word-for-word from other sources. Additionally, Pro didn't even follow his own rule sometimes. For example, the first paragraph under his first contention in Round 2 (beginning with the words "Is the amendment...") was language lifted directly from a different source, but he didn't include a footnote after the paragraph to indicate he was citing anything at all. Even if you accept Pro's explanation that he somehow didn't need to provide quotation marks, he may still have committed plagiarism by essentially failing to introduce any original ideas in this entire debate. Almost every paragraph of my opponent's arguments from Rounds 2 and 3 are arguments cited from other sources. As plagiarism.com explains, this too is an example of plagiarism: "The Resourceful Citer: The writer properly cites all sources, paraphrasing and using quotations appropriately. The catch? The paper contains almost no original work! It is sometimes difficult to spot this form of plagiarism because it looks like any other well-researched document." http://www.plagiarism.org...; As my opponent barely wrote any original sentences, I think voters should award me with the "spelling and grammar" category as well as the category for "conduct." 2. Gun rights are not human rights Human rights are rights that are universally recognized, as evidenced by their codification in major international treaties or resolutions that enjoy near-unanimous support. Generally, the two foremost legal authorities defining "human rights" are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). [2] The UDHR was U.N. general assembly resolution adopted by a vote of 48 to 0 in 1948, [3] and is classified by the Guinness Book of World Records as the "most translated document" in the world. [4] Similarly, all but 19 of the world's 194 countries have signed the ICCPR. [5] Some U.S. Constitution rights qualify as "human rights," while other clearly do not. The 1st Amendment's right to free speech, for example, is a universal right codified in both the UDHR [6] and the ICCPR. [7] Similarly, the 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is codified in both the UDHR and ICCPR. [8, 9] Unlike the 1st and 8th Amendments, however, there are no similar provisions enshrining the 2nd Amendment's right to "bear arms" anywhere in the UDHR or ICCPR. Thus, under international law, gun rights are not "human rights." This distinction answers my opponent's objection in Round 3 that I was selectively dismissing provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Notwithstanding their lack of recognition under international law, my opponent argues that gun rights are human rights because guns are an extension of the "right to self defense." This argument is weak from the onset, because there is no "right" to self defense. To begin with, self-defense is not recognized in the UDHR, the ICCPR, or, for that matter, in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, self-defense is merely a legal justification for conduct that, if it weren't absolutely necessary, would otherwise be criminal. [10] Even if self-defense could be characterized as a "human right," it doesn't follow that this necessarily establishes a right to own and carry firearms, because there are less lethal means of self-defense. People can carry pepper spray or learn certain martial arts, for example. To make an analogy to international law, no country has a "right" to develop nuclear weapons, even though nuclear weapons are indisputably the most effective way of guaranteeing a nation's right to self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Some weapons are simply too dangerous to be freely available, and government legislatures are perfectly entitled to make a determination restricting their availability. Conclusion: Though recognized here in the United States, the very concept of "gun rights" are an anachronism to the rest of the world. Given how easily guns are available in America, it should come as no surprise that our homicide rate is higher than any comparably wealthy country. For the sake of creating a safer society, it is time that we recognize the "right to bear arms" protected by our Second Amendment was simply a huge mistake from our pre-industrial Founding Fathers. Sources: [1] http://www.un.org...; [2] http://www2.ohchr.org...; [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...; [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...; [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...; [6] http://www.un.org...; [7] http://www2.ohchr.org...; [8] http://www.un.org...; [9] http://www2.ohchr.org...; [10] http://en.wikipedia.org...; |
 |
| 16kadams | LiberalHoyaLawya | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
| 16kadams | LiberalHoyaLawya | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
He should not be voting on your debates.