The Instigator
abard124
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Mental health evaluations should be required in order to buy a firearm

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Grape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,968 times Debate No: 14812
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (4)

 

abard124

Pro

Have you ever seen a mentally ill person and said, "Gosh, I really hope s/he can get a gun"? That wouldn't really make much sense. That would be an impediment to your safety. Well, by legally allowing mentally unstable people to get guns, we are impeding everyone's safety. Clearly, there are a lot of things the government could do to make America a safer place that don't fall within the realm of sanity, but forcing people to get mental health evaluations before buying a gun certainly does fall within the realm of sanity. What do the shootings at Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, and Tucson have to do with each other (besides being terrible shootings that made a lot of people dead)? The perpetrators all bought their guns legally. We know that Seung-Hui Cho (the VA Tech shooter) was mentally unstable, and it would be surprising if Nidal Hasan and Jared Loughner weren't. Loughner even refused to take a mental health evaluation at some point. If he had been required to take a mental health evaluation before getting a gun, he probably never would have gotten his gun in the first place. If he didn't have a gun, Christina-Taylor Green would still be alive today, as would all of the other victims of that shooting. Gabby Giffords would still be legislating. People did not need to die.
Grape

Con

Thanks to my opponent for offering this debate. I hope their our discourse will be productive and worthwhile.

Introduction:

I believe that an individual's right to the sole use of his or her personal property is a necessary extension of that individual's right to self ownership. To prevent someone from trading an item that he or she legally owns is to aggress against that person and deny the right to self ownership. Accepting the right to self ownership and behaving non-violently toward peaceful people are not metaphysically required, but belief in these principles is necessary for coherent political philosophy and existence in a civilized society. Using force to prevent someone from buying a weapon on the basis that they have not been deemed mentally capable by some arbitrary source is contrary to the basic principles of liberty.

Arguments:

1) Justification of Self Ownership

The moment that we begin to debate with someone, we concede that their consent to the outcome that we propose is relevant. The argument that libertarians typically use is that you cannot convince someone to be your slave: at best, you can convince someone to work for you for free. Someone cannot be convinced to do something involuntarily.

Of course, that does not stop you from simply not engaging with someone and violating their rights at will. However, in doing so you have conceded that your capacity to engage in violence is the critical issue and not the validity of your position. This is philosophically bankrupt and it is an example of the barbarism that has made human history a tale of exploitation and slavery. It is incompatible with the proper goal and function of a culturally and technologically advanced society. You may justify such violence to yourself by saying that your aggression is for the greater good, but the moment you try to convince your victims of this you have fallen into a contradiction.

This idea is inspired by J�rgen Habermas' discourse ethics. [1] I have tried to explain it in my own original terms, so it may not be a perfect representation of the actual theory.

2) Justification if Property Rights

A human being does not float around in the vacuum of space; all of our actions are contingent on the physical world as it exists beyond ourselves. Our basic ability to move around is a use of the ground we walk on. Thus, a person's self ownership also encompasses their use of the objects on which their actions directly depend. If a person uses an object that is not already in the possession of someone else, it is their property until they relinquish their use of it. To steal from someone is to aggress against their self ownership; it is equivalent to an attack on their physical being.

3) Restricting the Trade of Guns

Restricting a person who has come into the legitimate (by which I mean just, not legal) possession of a gun from trading it to another person in exchange for anything or nothing is a violation of the right to self ownership. The fact that you think a greater good may be achieved through this crime is irrelevant; the second you resort to force you have dismissed morality and decided that truth shall be decided by who has the most firepower. Napoleon Bonaparte said that in battle, God is on the side with the most artillery. This is a good military maxim but as a moral argument is it intentionally a joke.

4) Mental Illness Cannot Be Defined Objectively

There is no uniform consensus in psychology about what mental illness is or what exactly constitutes a mental illness. [2] Who would decide whether or not someone is "insane" enough to justify taking away their right to own a firearm? A gun seller could require his customers provide evidence of mental stability from private psychological evaluation firm, but for a government to do this would be much different. The government would have to deem that the firm was objectively correct or they would be acting unjustly whereas a private individual would simply be exercising his right not to do business with a certain person.

5) Private Alternatives

There is no shortage of non-coercive ways to prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who are not fit to have them. As stated above, gun sellers can require their customers to present evidence that they are qualified customers. There would be a great deal of pressure to instate such requirements: gun owners may only purchase their weapons from sellers who adhere to such rules and gun producers may only ship to those who won't put their products into the wrong hands. The pressure to do this comes from both a desire for safety and a desire to have a good reputation. Gun safety is important to most people, especially gun owners who are familiar with the associated risks, and even if the costs of making sure guns were kept in the right hands were privatized it is highly likely that the costs would still be met.

6) Preventing Gun Violence Is Impossible

Studies estimate that the market value of illegal weapons trading is about $245 million. [3] It is true that some mass murders were committed by people who bought their guns legally, but there are a huge number of weapons being sold on the black market. The majority of gun violence is caused by relatively sane criminals and not by isolated attacks from lunatics. [4] It is virtually impossible to prevent dangerous people from getting weapons somehow. My opponent could propose increasingly more coercive policies, such as further restricting weapon ownership to reduce the number of available guns, but this only increases the use of violence against innocent people. The real answer lies in increased security, which can be funded privately and does not aggress against non-violent people. There is no ultimate answer to the problem of violence, but it does not lie in increased violence against innocent people in the name of protecting them.

Conclusion:

My opponent's goal is obviously reasonable, but his means of accomplishing it are unjust. Aggressing against people and taking their rights away is an ironic way to try to protect them. It is easy to see how labeling certain people as "mentally unfit" according to a government-enforced standard could be very dangerous, especially when no such standard is accepted in the science of psychology. People who sell and produce guns have an interest in making sure that guns are used safely. It should be their responsibility, and not the responsibility of uninformed bureaucrats who back up their proclamations with threats of force, to regulate the trade of firearms.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.havocscope.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Pro

Thank you very much for your very thoughtful and intelligent response!

In the interest of organization, I will address each of your points and then enter my own.

1. Justification of Self Ownership

You seem to have taken quite the roundabout approach to this argument. At the risk of appearing ignorant, I must concede that I am still not entirely sure what you were trying to say in that argument. I may be completely wrong in assuming this, but I am going to go ahead and assume that you mean to lay the premise that we lead our own lives. This is irrelevant. Nothing is saying that one has to get a mental health examination, you just can't have a gun if you don't. If you meant something else, please do explain clearly.

2. Justification of Property Rights

I think your main point in this is that somebody steals an object (in this case, a gun), it is acquired by figurative violence, but is acquired nonetheless. This, however, is irrelevant. Though it is possible to steal guns, most of the massacres we hear about are committed by people who purchased their guns legally. I'm not saying that they couldn't steal one if they had to, but it would reduce gun violence, and hopefully they would get arrested for stealing a gun rather than shooting 12 people with one.

3. Restricting the trade of guns

If you are insinuating that someone could acquire a gun by means other than formal purchase, alas, that is also irrelevant. I never once claimed that this would make it so that no mentally unstable person would be able to acquire a gun. I simply claimed that it would reduce (mind you, not stop) gun violence.

4. Mental illness cannot be defined objectively

This is your first real argument. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. There are plenty of ways of evaluating whether someone has a mental illness [1]. It would not be difficult at all to allow psychologists to be licensed by the government to evaluate people seeking gun licenses.

5. Private alternatives

"There is no shortage of non-coercive ways to prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who are not fit to have them." That statement, though correct, is not commonly implemented, and it needs to be. Otherwise people like Jared Loughner get guns. In a perfect world, you're right. Private sellers would do that. There is pressure to do that. But there is also pressure to make money. Often times, gun sellers give their customers the benefit of the doubt in order to make money. Besides, unless every single gun seller shows the aforementioned initiative, all the invisible hand of the marketplace is doing is allowing unethical business to flourish. That's why we have regulations against sweatshop labor, monopolies, and slavery. It's the same way with this. The gun shop that allows more people to buy guns is the one that makes more money. That's why it needs to be regulated.

6. Preventing Gun Violence is Impossible

This is irrelevant. It would certainly reduce gun violence, and that is important. You claim that increased security would be a better fix, but there is completely no way to implement that without becoming a police state. Besides, I know I don't want to be spied on by the government wherever I go, so I think it would be much better to attack the root of the problem.

Perhaps I was unclear in my first argument. I in no way meant to insinuate that this proposal would completely do away with gun violence. That's ridiculous. No matter what we do, people will be able to get guns. However, it seems that most cases of gun violence that we do see are committed by people with legally purchased weapons. So, it seems to me that it would clearly reduce the amount of gun violence. Source 2 is a map showing the strictness on gun laws per state. Source 3 is a map showing the gun death rate per state. It's not a perfect correlation, but note the similarities, especially in the northeast and California (as compared to its neighbors). Your idea of sellers doing the right thing is honorable, but that's just not how it works.

I am looking forward to your response!

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://sg.wsj.net...
3. http://gunlawforum.files.wordpress.com...
Grape

Con

Introduction:

Thanks to my opponent for his prompt and thorough reply. There seems to have been some confusion about my points. They were not each a standalone argument. I numbered them simply for the sake of organization. I apologize if the use of the label "arguments" was misleading.

Arguments:

1) Justification of Self Ownership

This was not a direct argument against required mental health evaluations; it was meant to establish an ethical foundation for further arguments. It establishes the premise that we should respect other people's right to own themselves. This theory can be found elsewhere on the Internet and has been used in many other debates on this site, so if my explanation is too confusing you can read many others. Pro has not offering anything coherent to actually contest this theory.

2) Justification of Property Rights

Pro does not seem to have understood this argument. It is an argument against stealing guns, but that is not the point. I clearly established what property rights are and how they stem from self-ownership. Preventing people from exchanging items with whomever they wish is a clear violation of their property rights. Pro's response to this point has not contested the theory either; it's just a response to some comments about gun theft that I never made.

3) Restricting the Trade of Guns

Pro has offered another rambling response that is utterly disconnected to my actual arguments, which can be reread above. I cannot address his response because it literally has nothing to do with what I actually wrote. Pro does not seem to have understood any of my first three points, which establish the philosophical foundation of my position, so I extend all of them. They have been replied to (vaguely) but they have not been contested,

4) Mental Illness Cannot Be Defined Objectively

My opponent's source has proven that there are ways people define mental illness, but they are not completely consistent with one another. As I indicated in the last round, psychology is far from completely understood. Homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder. The fact is, human psychology is too complex for us to arbitrarily use force to constrain all those deemed different from normal.

5) Private Alternatives

Pro notes that private alternatives to government regulation are not infallible. Sure, that's why black markets exist. I'm simply making the point that a free market won't just hand out guns to every crazy who comes and asks for one. There are nonviolent ways of achieving these goals. My nonviolent system may not function as well as a police state for dealing with these particular issue, but the net gain of respecting freedom is undoubtedly greater.

Pro really seems to be deeply confused about my theory if he equates it was slavery. Slavery is my definition against libertarian principles; I practically used it as an example in the first round. He thinks regulation is the solution to our problems, but he does not see regulation for what it is: more violence.

6) Preventing Gun Violence is Impossible

When I discussed increased security, I of course meant private measures. In fact, I specifically outlined that I was not proposing government security. If Pro thinks I am suggesting a police state then he obviously did not understand my previous arguments at all. His rant about spying is unrelated to anything I suggested. I really don't feel the need to outline how private security firms work because I think it's understand that they are not at all like a government.

Furthermore, his concept of the burden of proof in this debate as evidenced by this argument is completely flawed. He never stated that his goal was to prove that mental health evaluation requirements would reduce gun violence. I assumed that his argument was that these requirements would be better. Reducing gun violence is not a goal in itself, the real question is whether the policy is just and will improve society. If all you care about is reducing the number of people killed by guns then you should look in to nuking the entire country. That would lower the number of gun related homicides dramatically. I'm going to focus on actual outcomes instead of statistics.

Conclusion:
Pro has not addressed my first three arguments so I'm just extending them. He completely lacks a fundamental understanding of the theory I just laid out. Rather than typing the whole thing out again and repeating myself ad nauseam in an attempt to explain, I'm just going to refer everyone back to Round 1. It's ironic and a little irritating that my opponent has dismissed my case as "irrelevant" and then responded with random comments that did not relate to anything I actually wrote and showed a complete lack of understanding of what I actually said. I hope that he will reread Round 1 and reply next round with something related to my original arguments.

I'm going to refrain from arbitrarily inserting sources into a dialogue that does not require them. The only point that was factually contested was already addressed by my second source in Round 1, and I do not feel that I am at a disadvantage in sources because two of Pro's three sources just referenced irrelevant statistics about gun violence rates in different states.
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Pro

Thank you again for your response!

Arguments

1. Justification of Self Ownership

Thank you for clarifying. Now that I understand your point, I agree and have no rebuttal.

2. Justification of Property Rights

Suppose someone chose to trade cigarettes to a 10 year-old. Theoretically you could make your argument, but it would be kind of silly. It's the same way with guns, but guns are even more dangerous, so it would make sense that we should have some requirements for gun ownership as well as cigarette ownership. As we can see from most shootings, an age limit would be ineffective, but a mental health limit would. Likewise, it would be like a soldier trading a machine gun to a civilian. It would be downright dangerous.

3. Restricting the Trade of Guns

Terribly sorry, but I seem to have addressed this point in the previous argument. I hope that you will understand, as they are inherently interrelated.

4. Mental Illness Cannot be Defined Objectively

I agree that there are many ways to define mental illness, but if they are looking for specific criteria, I couldn't imagine it being too difficult. There could even be psychologists whose sole job is to examine the criteria laid down in order to get a gun. I think this a case of it being made more complicated than it is.

5. Private Alternatives

To directly quote my opponent, "a free market won't just hand out guns to every crazy who comes and asks for one." As I've mentioned many times throughout this debate, Jared Loughner, Nidal Hasan, and Seung-Hui Cho all purchased their guns legally. I sure hope that we can agree that they are all crazy. So maybe not every crazy person is getting a gun, but these ones did, and as a result of just those three people having guns, 52 people were killed and 69 injured[1][2][3]. This is not something that we can leave to capitalism. I love capitalism when it works, but pure laissez-faire does not work by itself, and that's what we have the government for.

And I think you misunderstood my slavery reference, so I will attempt to explain it. Basically, you were arguing that businesses would be ethical without government intervention. I used slavery as an example of when businesses were not ethical without government intervention.

6. Preventing Gun Violence is Impossible

I will admit that I must have misunderstood you when I wrote my three sentence "rant" in which I happened to mention spying once as slight hyperbole, but I feel as though I was justified in assuming that you meant government security. You see, you have an extremely idealistic view of the free market. But what you have to understand is that the free market allows choice, and security can be really expensive. As a result, many places forgo the security such as the campus of VA Tech, or perhaps a Safeway parking lot. Government security is much more effective, but as I said earlier, it could lead to a police state or something of the like. The only way to truly prevent gun violence is to attack the root of the problem.

Now, your rebuttal of my burden of proof argument is almost silly. You said, "Reducing gun violence is not a goal in itself, the real question is whether the policy is just and will improve society." Now, technically, yes, that is my proposition. However, I was under the pretense that it was a given that reducing gun violence would improve society. If you would like to argue that reducing gun violence would, in fact, not improve society, by all means, be my guest. As for the nuke comment, that is an excellent point, and I'm glad you brought it up. If everyone could get their hands on a nuke, this country would be utter chaos and we probably would all be dead within a few weeks at most. That's why we regulate nukes. This is not the free market saying that they want to be responsible. This is the law saying that civilians can't have nukes. Likewise, if we didn't give guns to people who it would be unsafe to give guns to, there would be less gun violence. Finally, the last point you made was, "I'm going to focus on actual outcomes instead of statistics." Well, I would hope you would, because then you might realize that a whole bunch of people died at VA Tech, Ft. Hood, and Tucson. That's an actual outcome of what happens when this doesn't exist.

Now seems a good time to take a step back and take a look at what is practical. My opponent put forth some very idealistic ideas that, though honorable, are simply not practical. As great as it would be if the free market would do all of that, that's putting a lot of trust in a whole lot of different organizations. That provides a tremendous amount of uncertainty. When there are lives at stake, that sort of uncertainty is exactly what needs to be reduced. Perhaps it would be effective if it was implemented along with my program, but by itself, it just relies on too much that we can't control as a whole. It's just not practical. I won't pretend that my arguments are as loquacious, eloquent, or verbose as those of my opponent, but mine are practical. Practicality is key when lives are at stake. Even for a strong libertarian, one should understand that the government does keep people safe. That's why we have speed limits and that's why you can't buy a nuke. Why, then, should they not be able to regulate the sale of guns in order to save lives? I see no downside, and with that, I rest my case. Thank you to my opponent, and best of luck!

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Grape

Con

Introduction:

My opponent has made an excellent reply this round, and I am very satisfied with how this debate has gone. I have no more commentary that I have not already made, so I will proceed with my arguments.

Arguments:

1) Justification of Self Ownership

My opponent has no objections to this point, so I extend it.

2) Justification of Property Rights

Unfortunately, Pro has made no counterarguments against this point. If you refer to my argument in Round 1, you will see that he never addresses the theory behind this claim. Instead, he simply gives examples of possible results of this theory, presupposing that I will concede that they are bad. I have no objection to people owning any weapons, and Pro presupposes his conclusion in offering this as evidence.

Consider, instead, if I were to list possible bad alternatives of the negation of this point. We could steal from one another at will and the government could take away your right to own anything. Both positions are bad when viewed in the worst possible light, but the negation is clearly worse.

3) Restricting the Trade of Guns

Pro's response to this point under the previous argument amounts to little more than a presupposition of his conclusion: we should restrict the trade of guns because we should restrict the trade of guns.

4) Mental Illness Cannot Be Defined Objectively

Pro has underestimated how convoluted issues regarding sanity and insanity truly are. I would like to discuss the Rosenhan Experiment [1]. It took from 7 to 72 days, with an average of 19 days, for perfectly sane people to be released from mental institutions, and all considered to be "in remission." The government cannot claim legitimacy in restricting the rights of supposedly insane people when professionals are clearly incapable of distinguishing them from everyone else. A private firm, on the other hand, only needs to be accurate to the extent that it is trusted.

5) Private Alternatives

Pro has cited three examples in which the capitalist system has failed. I consider that a solid record. There is no telling whether mandatory mental health evaluations would have succeeded in keeping guns out of the hands of those people because they could always buy them illegally (see Round 1). In any case, this evidence only seems compelling because we do not see evidence of nonevents. A system that violates the rights of innocent people in small, minor events each day is not as inspiring but it is just as terrible.

Pro also seems to believe that governments are the solution to slavery. However, governments have been the greatest perpetrators of slavery in the history of the world. The United States government carries out and sanctions slavery to this day [2]. Rather than trading one master for another, I think slaves would benefit from the libertarian solution: exercise their right to defend themselves against violations of their rights. The government is almost exclusively harmful, and the good that it does can be done without the use of coercive force.

6) Preventing Gun Violence is Impossible

Pro has argued that private security is expensive to fund and may not be available everywhere. This applies equally to government security; everything costs money. Funding it through theft doesn't make it free. Since Con is also against government security, he seems to be arguing that security is impossible and the real solution is to disarm everyone. All this does is place all the power in the hands of the few who are armed. It takes little analysis to decide whether my position or my opponent's position reduces to totalitarianism.

Pro barely addresses my point about the burden of proof. I suggested that what is morally just and produces the most benefit is more important that what adjusts statistics. I offered genocide as a possible example of something that would improve the gun death statistics but would clearly be bad. Just because something would reduce gun violence, or improve any generally undesirable problem, does not make it good overall.

As for Pro's comments on the unregulated distribution of nuclear weapons, I will answer those concerns. I can say without fear that I see no negative implications in allowed the unregulated sale and production of nuclear weapons: they are far too expensive to be developed and produced privately, they are practically useless so not one would want them, and madmen trying to hold the world hostage could be dealt with by private forces within libertarian principles. The libertarian solution to nuclear weapons is far better than one in which states can produce them by the thousands and push humanity to the brink of annihilation to further their petty political goals.

Pro writes lots of state capitalist stock phrases, but he substantiates little of it. Why have mandatory speed limits when the owner of a road can set the speed limits however he wants? The idea in mainstream politics is that "X doesn't work" where X can be any system that deviates from democracy and state capitalism. Communism doesn't work, anarchy doesn't work, perfectly free markets don't work, etc. It reminds me of Brave New World: repeat these phrases enough times and they become axioms.

I have provided evidence and analysis to indicate why my position is credible, so simply saying that it's impractical doesn't prove anything. In any case, stealing is a wonderfully practical way to appropriate delicious candy. I prefer to buy things because I respect the rights of others and because I do not wish to perpetuate a society of violence. I think Pro's contention that instituting and legitimizing violence on a national scale is an effective way to reduce violence is a bit more impractical.

Conclusion:

Argument 6 is basically my conclusion. Also, this is the most stereotypical DDO political debate ever.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.sss.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Builders which are not illegal black market.
Posted by J.Kenyon 3 years ago
J.Kenyon
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. "The major issue being faced" by whom?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Kenyon,

The major issue being faced (and still is a problem) is the underground/black market which could price at easily 25% under cost because of all work cash (no income/sales tax), "slave" labor (illegal residents, completely untrained), no insurance (no workers compensation, etc), no OH&S consideration (no safety compliance), no building code compliance (poor construction quality), no warranty, and are completely transitional (they are builders for a few years, once they lose rep, they just do something else so they are in it for the short term gain).

Beyond the obvious and immediate direct loss of work, there is also the long term effect of a growing unease in the populace which keep hearing these stories of problems and as a result those people who do want to avoid them are making more demands of the legitimate builders. Thus not only is the black market taking away work directly they are even rasing the cost of the work that legitimate builders do get as the requirements are becoming more stringent because of trying to avoid the problems that people perceive which are in their minds issues with all builders.

Thus interestingly enough, the free market environment has both raised our direct cost and is sustaining a competition which we can not meet as it would require illegal (and quite frankly immoral actions) to do so.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"so 10'of thousands of people died because the president had ego issues"

Dispute acknowledged, but what is your assertion that in a large scale war that conventional warfare would lead to less loss of life than WMD?

I will give a few example later of issues, they are related to the construction industry, mainly residential.
Posted by J.Kenyon 3 years ago
J.Kenyon
"You do not support their use in WWII?"

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

TL;DR, Japan offered to surrender in May of 1945, but Truman dropped the bombs in August anyway because he wanted an *unconditional* surrender. Of course, they didn't end up unconditionally surrendering anyway, so 10'of thousands of people died because the president had ego issues.

"That is interesting, I have personally seen free-market fail time and time again in my current business and we have had to resort to state certification/legislation to deal with certain issues."

I'd need to know some specifics to give my opinion. We could debate medical licensing or FDA regulations in the debate tournament if you're interested. have you signed up yet?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"WMD's aren't for self-defense, though. There is no possible situation in which the use of WMD's could be justified. "

You do not support their use in WWII?

"Definitely. Not just for ethical reasons, but practical reasons as well."

That is interesting, I have personally seen free-market fail time and time again in my current business and we have had to resort to state certification/legislation to deal with certain issues.
Posted by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
Sorry to but in but just had to point something out.

"There is no possible situation in which the use of WMD's could be justified."

Asteroids say otherwise :)
Posted by J.Kenyon 3 years ago
J.Kenyon
"Or would you really make the argument that in current US government/market this would still be effective (remove all regulations and let the existing market control ownership)."

No, of course I support the right to defend oneself. WMD's aren't for self-defense, though. There is no possible situation in which the use of WMD's could be justified. You might try to contrive one, but it would probably be wildly implausible.

In our *current* society, I don't support nuclear disarmament because they're useful for deterring other countries from using or developing them, but in an anarchist society, I think they could justifiably be prohibited.

"How long before it would stabilize to a lower total incident rate including the effect of the upswing of incidents with an immediate removal of all regulations."

Meh, I doubt it would make much of a difference. The gun trade in America is already fairly laissez-faire, at least in most states. This is the part where I would defend the policy on practical grounds.

"Would you extend this to removal of all certification systems which also limit personal right of ownership/utility?"

Definitely. Not just for ethical reasons, but practical reasons as well.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"But guns have other uses beyond just killing people. Building a WMD is essentially a threat to use violence since they can't possibly serve any other function."

So you would not support an individual protecting claimed rights through violence if necessary? Or that they should have that right, but only be able to oppose a set limit of opposition?

"I would."

Make the argument of believe it - just curious.

How long before it would stabilize to a lower total incident rate including the effect of the upswing of incidents with an immediate removal of all regulations.

Would you extend this to removal of all certification systems which also limit personal right of ownership/utility?
Posted by J.Kenyon 3 years ago
J.Kenyon
"That is a difficult line to quantify, people should be allowed to have the ability to inflict violence just on a scale limited to what exactly and what is the justification for a limit?"

But guns have other uses beyond just killing people. Building a WMD is essentially a threat to use violence since they can't possibly serve any other function.

"Or would you really make the argument that in current US government/market this would still be effective (remove all regulations and let the existing market control ownership)."

I would.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 3 years ago
DylanAsdale
abard124GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 3 years ago
J.Kenyon
abard124GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 3 years ago
LaissezFaire
abard124GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly won here. His property rights argument wasn't really countered at all.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
abard124GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: "Suppose someone chose to trade cigarettes to a 10 year-old." - This was the deciding factor, while Con did have extremely well presented arguments they failed to address the reality that we do consistently have limits on our right to own/operate and trade/sell. These are based o Pro's argument which is minimizing harm to others.