Debate Rounds (3)
Gun crime is higher with more gun control.
In major cities of America that have more gun control, there is more crime.  Chicago has some extreme gun control, against both open carry and concealed carry, and yet it ranks at the top in gun crime. Countries that have more gun control demonstrate worse stats. Countries like Honduras, which has approximately 5 guns per 100 people has a homicide rate off the charts compared to that of gun-loving countries. 
Gun crime is lower without gun control.
In Switzerland, every household is REQUIRED to posses one Sig 550 assault rifle, and are encouraged to have one Sig P226 sidearm. They have some of the lowest gun crime and mass murder in the world. Israel, the US, and several others demonstrate similar trends.
I now place the shared burden of proof on my opponent to prove to me that gun rights are harmful to society.
(P.S. My opponent can rely on his anti-gun posters to protect him. But when my family is in danger, my Mossberg Maverick will do the job.)
My main contention here is with my opponent's assertion of gun "rights".
To establish "gun rights" (which it is his duty to defend (it is the entire proposition!), we ask what constitutes a right?
Surely my opponent does not claim that anything an individual wants warrants a right- equally, not what protects only the individual exclusively. This line of thought would allow for the individual to possess nuclear warheads (they do make good self defense tools). So why should we have gun rights?
My opponent seems to conclude it is that which preserves the most human life that necessitates this right. This is supported by his entire evidence coming from statistical data about murder rates in geographic areas with various firearm policies. However, this utilitarian claim cannot be said to warrant a right.
To acknowledge the sacrifice of some by the implementation of policy is to propagate this Abrahamic concept of sacrificial morality (not only unethical/undesirable but unnecessary!). But beyond this, my opponent's duty is rigorous: he must establish why firearm ownership is a right, but prior to this- why society is ideal? why the preservation of human life is ideal? These two issues seem the most problematic and so I will rest here as our positions may become more clearly defined in the subsequent round. Looking forward to rebuttals, Pro!
- US citizens have the right to bear arms
- This right should be defended and even extended
- The right to bear arms is a beneficial policy
Both pro and con have equal burden of proof, each having to prove the others standpoint wrong.
First, the citizens have the right to posses and utilize firearms in protection of themselves and other citizens. This is not so much an argument as it is a preliminary statement. Our constitution grants us this as a right to defend ourselves. Until such a time as this amendment is revised or revoked, the right to a firearm for personal use is granted. Thus I do not understand my opponent's contention about 'What is a right?'.
Second, this right should be defended and even extended within governmental and legislative policies. Current policies of government restrict the above rights beyond what is constitutional and beyond what is logical. Many will argue, "At the time that they wrote that amendment, they didn't have automatic weapons." At the time of the formation of our nation, most gun owning Americans had either the Brown Bess, or the Kentucky Long Rifle. The Brown Bess was the AK-47 of the day, and the Long Rifle the M16 of the day. The founding fathers knew what they were saying when they gave freedom to bear arms to their citizens. As threats to ourselves and our nation increase, the tools we have to defend ourselves also should increase.
Lastly, the right to bear arms has proven to be a beneficial policy. I point to my evidence provided in the first round, cited by sources provided in the first round. (Located in the comments. My bad.)
I am not sure what my opponent was trying to point out with his reference to a nuclear warhead, and I think it would be beneficial for him to elaborate on that point.
I now invite my opponent to attempt to prove any of my points wrong.
-My opponent asserts that US citizens have the right to bear arms. Right does not imply legal allowance, right implies fundamental condition for just existence. For instance, a human has the right to freedom, regardless of whether or not the government under which he falls enslaves him. So, we face a conflict: does my opponent claim that only US citizens have the right to bear arms? This seems jingoistic and discriminatory. I believe my opponent wishes to assert that gun ownership is a fundamental right of the species (or that Americans are somehow apart from the rest of the globe).
-This point is virtually null and void when we shift our gaze to a proper understanding of what a "right" actually is. I further contend that to say "The Brown Bess was the AK-47 of the day, and the Long Rifle the M16 of the day" is a baseless and improvable assertion. Should we evaluate current policy regarding electricity expenditure in lighting by comparing it to the candle? Also, the assertion that "threats to ourselves...increase". What threats? What do these threats justify? How far does this argument extend? My opponent's ambiguity fails to address any real matter upon which we may partake in concrete debate.
-I address my contention with social preservation in my initial questions, which remain overlooked. (The nuclear warhead was an extreme example [intentional slippery slope] that demands clarification for the extend and necessary cut off point of proposed defense legality).
Why is firearm ownership a right?
Why is social preservation ideal?
Is social preservation objectively upheld by firearms, and to what extent?
How can firearm restrictions be lifted when a direct consequence of this action will necessarily mean the loss of some innocent life?
When this debate was accepted by my opponent, it was fairly clear that my goal was to properly advocate for the support of gun rights, and my opponent's job was to prove why he is against gun rights. This isn't a question of whether or not 'rights' is the proper term, this is simply a debate about whether or not gun rights (as they are even called on this site) are beneficial to humanity.
My opponent has failed to prove that gun rights are counterproductive in the amount of space and time given.
I extend my previous points in support of gun rights.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
|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|
Reasons for voting decision: By establishing the 2nd amendment as the base work, and US cities (unrefuted, btw), as well as getting no argument that self defense is a right, Pro successfully established that gun rights can mitigate crime at the very least, and pushed into the bounds of defense of the country. Con asked a lot of questions that I don't feel had any real bit to them. They sidestepped the evidence on the table in favor of trying to establish a morality or reason, but offered no demonstration as to why their view was superior.
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.