Guns should have restrictions in the US
Debate Rounds (2)
This is my first Debate so I am not too familiar how this works.
I will be arguing on the side of Con, that law abiding American citizens deserve their 2nd Amendment rights, and it should not be denied to them because of the acts of a few criminals.
Our Constitution was written for a purpose, and that purpose was to guarantee basic rights and liberties to American citizens, as well as to establish a set code for government.
If you look at statistics, you can see that gun violence deaths are highest in African-American communities, and in areas with high gun control. Buying a gun is traceable, and it also is rather expensive. Criminals often buy weapons illegally, or steal it from someone else.
Your argument states that there should be a "legit reason for some on to have one". Will there be a committee that is set up to decide if the reasoning of a gun owner as to why he/she wants his/her property? If we were to let the wrongdoings of a few impact how we see an entire group, then the African American and Latino communities have much to answer for.
You brought up the second amendment. The second amendment states that all citizens have the right to bear arms(there is no argument there) but you have to remember that this Amendment was created in a time when we actual needed guns to protect ourselves, for example it was possible for America to be attacked at any time by either another country or the Natives.
I believe this is reason enough to say that this Amendment shouldn't be an amendment in this day and age that we live in.
I also don't think that this in any way is good reason to blame minorities. Because most of the black community is very poor and have no where else to turn. I also think it is unfair to blame the black community as a whole.
To address your other argument, the way that a criminal gets a gun is through their local gun store, where they can get a gun with little information, and cheap enough to buy in a day or two on minimum wage.
This my opinion and I don't mean to offend you in any way.
A properly handled firearm could have prevented that attack.
Additionally, you state that criminals get their weapons from firearm stores. That is definitely not the case. A majority of violent criminals who have used firearms of any kind in their endeavor to commit crime have used illegally bought weapons. Most gang violence revolves around weapons bought and sold without permission.
Without proper means of self defense, we fall prey to a tyrannical government. If you take a look at past dictatorships, such as the USSR, Nazi Germany, China, and Cuba, all of them had massive gun control, which made is impossible to purchase or own any type of weapon. This needed to occur since their massive human abuses and lack of care for human rights could only be stopped by an armed population.
Furthermore, crime is most prevalent in areas that have high gun control. Baltimore, Chicago, and Los Angeles have extreme gun control, to the point where most private establishments as well as public establishments do not allow any firearms inside at all. I currently reside in Chicago, and I am fully aware of the high crime here. Most crime is gang related, and there are more established gangs in gun control cities then any other. This is a direct result of a disarmed population, which enables these criminals to commit murder, rape, assault, and robbery without any immediate repercussion or any risk to their lives.
Our liberties are transcendent throughout all times, and we should never have to relinquish our liberties due to the wrongdoings of others. Instead, we should emphasize education and determination, rather then handing out money to impoverished families and creating nothing but just blatant dependency.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by cathaystewie 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:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good debate, but CON was the only side of the house that adequately framed the status quo with him pointing out the differences in crime rates between gun-restricted and non-gun-restricted areas. CON was the only side of the house to illustrate the proportionate relationship between government aggression and aggression of the people, which was unrefuted by PRO with a misinterpretation that this was a discriminatory policy against blacks. Therefore I award my vote to CON.
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.