The Instigator
liberal17
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tyler3923
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Gun Control something We should consider?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 606 times Debate No: 46612
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

liberal17

Pro

I think that Gun Control is something our country should consider. I think that this is an argument that needs to be had, or a discussion rather. I believe that I have substantial evidence to prove my points, and to prove that Gun Control isn't unconstitutional. I will propose, minimum magazines of 10 bullets per magazine, I will propose national background checks, and I will also propose, although I could be swayed on this one, to make assault rifles illegal. Good luck to my opponent, but I hope I win!
tyler3923

Con

Allow me to start by saying thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion. While I am new to this website, I am not new to firearms. By US Military standards, I am qualified as an expert with the Beretta M9 service pistol and as a marksman with the M16. I have owned firearms for the past 15 years (I'm 23) and am staunchly opposed to the infringement of any of our constitutionally protected rights; however, the right to keep and bear arms is one that is near and dear to myself and nearly half of all Americans. I will try in this debate to show you that gun control measures commonly proposed and supported by liberals (no offense) are genuinely ineffective and asinine. It is my intention that by the conclusion of this debate that not only will you feel that the right to own a modern semi automatic rifle is one that is constitutionally protected, but that you will also cease to use the misnomer "assault rifle".
Debate Round No. 1
liberal17

Pro

liberal17 forfeited this round.
tyler3923

Con

Please refrain from forfeiting future rounds as this will make having this "debate" entirely one sided which eliminates the entire point. If you have substantial evidence as you have claimed, this should not be a problem.

On June 26th, 2008 the SCOTUS affirmed the following: "The"Second Amendment"guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Just as the first amendment does not guarantee all speech (yelling fire in a movie theatre) the second amendment does not guarantee the right to military grade arms. In this regard, gun control is NOT unconstitutional. It's when laws are passed forcing manufactururs to comply with unreasonable standards (microstamping/smart guns) that you have implemented a de-facto gun ban which IS unconstitutional.
Debate Round No. 2
liberal17

Pro

It isn't that it was because I was busy and have a social life outside of this website. And some sick people don't use it for lawful reasons, I support having guns and I don't want to take them away. The second amendment doesn't specify whether someone is separate from a militia rather it says that is the only purpose to have a gun. It never specifies in the second amendment that guns are for self defense in a home. And I would like to tell you that I am glad that you are educated and obviously well rounded on this subject, it makes for a good debate, at least on your side, I hope that I don't seem idiotic. Also I wanted to say I was sorry I thought that 1,000 characters would be enough, my bad. I would like to give the viewers of this debate, the second amendment to let them decide. http://www.archives.gov...
tyler3923

Con

One of the many advantages to our constitution is that it is capable of evolving with the times. One of the functions of the supreme court is the interpretation of what is written and what is intended. The aforementioned court case is an equally legally binding aspect of the second amendment as written. Imagine if you will if time first amendment was limited to speech and did not apply to the internet because it does not explicitly say in the constitution that "tweets" are protected speech.

As for your contention that magazines should be limited to 10 rounds, lets talk about New York for a second. Data compiled over the last 11 years puts NYPD's hit ratio at around 34%. In other words, if they were limited to 7 rounds as everyone else is under the SAFE act, they'd be lucky to hit their target more than twice per magazine. Add in multiple armed assailants and that 7 round mag will get you killed.

Agreed, there is a lot I'm forced to leave unsaid. 3,000 would probably be sufficient.
Debate Round No. 3
liberal17

Pro

I am not talking about police forces I was talking about the civilians, I think law enforcement can have an unlimited amount of magazines, in one clip. And also if those numbers are accurate for the NYPD they really need classes and they need to learn how to shoot. That is really bad. I also don't understand why blind and deaf people are allowed to have fully automatic weapons,that bill was just passed in Iowa. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... I am convinced a little bit though to rear back on fully automatic weapons, that I was against, but I believe now that if you have a permit and can shoot them well the it should be fine.
tyler3923

Con

Agreed on NYPD being pathetically inaccurate. The point I was going for however is that in a gunfight, accuracy suffers. Hence the need for larger capacity magazines for anyone who wishes to defend themselves. In an offensive situation, I wish to direct you to the VA tech shooting. He carried 19 magazines on him. So what effect will capacity limitations have? The mentally disturbed will simply have to reload a few more times. As for the victims chances of survival? Unchanged. Most people can reload in under five seconds. Can the average person exit cover and incapacitate a shooter in the same time? Nope.

What they fail to mention in that article is that it is possible to be legally blind while also being corrected to reasonably good vision with glasses. I went to bootcamp with a guy who is legally blind but 20/20 with the hubble telescope equivilent of glasses.

An AR-15 is NOT fully automatic and AR does NOT stand for "assault rifle". Full auto weapons require an NFA tax stamp.
Debate Round No. 4
liberal17

Pro

I agree with you on the magazines part we just need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. To do this we need to have a national background check. I still think that someone who is legally declared blind defiantly shouldn't have a gun. If they are legally declared blind and they can pass an eye test with their glasses, then they can have a gun. I hope al of you vote for me in this debate. I wanted to thank my opponent for a great debate.
tyler3923

Con

Just to clarify, you are now of the opinion that magazine limitations are pointless and that the fault lies not with the gun but with the person wielding it.

We already do. It is called a NICS check. Anyone purchasing a gun from a store or online is subject to one. The problem with barring someone from owning a firearm for mental illness is that it will inevitably be taken to an extreme. Should someone be banned from exercising a right just because they were suicidal 10 years ago? No. Absolutely not. Should a schizophrenic own a gun? Nope. I'm glad you brought this up because I feel it is an area in which a middle of the road approach is the best one.

That's kind of a moot point since someone who is 100% blind would not be capable of operating or safely firing a gun. They are fully aware of that fact.

And just to show how vulnerable a disarmed populace is to any form of armed aggression...

http://m.bbc.com...
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tyler3923 3 years ago
tyler3923
No worries. Im on my phone so autocorrect has probably gotten me at least once.
Posted by liberal17 3 years ago
liberal17
I meant to say then*
Posted by MrSykoCat 3 years ago
MrSykoCat
I hope for you to win, Tyler. I may still be 15 and new to this website, but firearms are definetly not new to me either. And even though I've been diagnosed with several moderate (I will not be specific here, sorry. Privacy issues) mental illnesses, plus a ISTP personality type,not a good combination, I've consistantly been at least a decent shot and very safe shot. And although I have nothing (currently, although I am planning on joining and becoming a member when I can) to do with the NRA, I would classify myself as an intermediately skilled marksman according to their standards. I could be wrong, as I haven't run proper tests on my skill, but I would guess around there. I firmly stand by the second amendment and am running a debate on my own right now. As Thomas Jefferson once said "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms".
Posted by liberal17 3 years ago
liberal17
I'm sorry that I did not see your comment, I would have responded to it if I saw it. I see what I meant know, so thank you for helping me clear that up. And the plan wouldn't really cover anything else, I included mental illness in the background checks. Thank you for giving me feedback, and again I am sorry I did not get back to you.
Posted by Letsdebate24 3 years ago
Letsdebate24
I would be more than happy to accept this debate after a couple things are cleared up.
1. Did you mean a maximum of 10 round magazines?
2. What other restrictions would your gun control plan impose?
No votes have been placed for this debate.