The Instigator
NKJVPrewrather
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Arganger
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Arganger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 180 times Debate No: 106942
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

NKJVPrewrather

Pro

I'm very moderate on guns. I will never use or own a gun for any reason, but I support some level of gun rights for mentally healthy adults to use for lawful reasons. Self defense is a right.
Arganger

Con

My argument is that the right to defend one's self shouldn't depend on mental health. After all, a right is not a right if it is denied to 1 in 5 people. Not to mention an attack on veterans, who often experience mental illness after active service. 31 Percent of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nami.org...
https://www.rand.org...
Debate Round No. 1
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

Oh God, I picked up a troll. Let's feed you. I don't have gun rights due to neuropsychiatric diseases, but if you are mentally healthy, you do. Mental patients would just kill someone, but you would not, therefore, I support your gun rights.
Arganger

Con

I promise you I am not trolling. The mentally ill make up a very real and fairly large part of the usa, and as such their rights should be protected. Just as it is wrong and illegal to kill a person fighting mental illness due to their protected right to live.

The mentally ill are far more likely to be attacked than to attack anyone, and the vast majority of the time are not violent in any way.

I do deal with mental illness, actually. So you don't support my right to own a gun.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

Mental patients don't have gun rights, end of story, that is too extreme, mon cher, and I am a moderate Republican saying this.
Arganger

Con

How is it extreme for people to have equal rights? If the mentally ill are not given the same rights, especially seeing how common mental illnesses are, then it is no right. Either that or you are denying them their basic rights.

As you can see from my last argument, the mentally ill are far more likely to be the victim of violence than to inflict it.

A right cannot be something given only to some people, over something they have no control.Not to mention they need to be able to protect themselves, and the government has historically mistreated the mentally ill.

The euginics movement for instance was primarly focused on the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.

Also, abusive mental institutions were common for much of us history, where the mentally ill were often outright forgotten about.

Lobotomies were used to treat patients with PTSD as well as many other mental illnesses.

Society has shown itself to be a much bigger threat to the mentally ill than the other way around. Mental illness isn't a crime, and they are human.

Regardless, the mentally ill that seek treatment are by far the least likely to be violant, and restricting access to guns may for some be a factor to not seek treatment.

To conclude, the mentally ill are not dangerus. The mentally ill seeking treatment are even less likely to be violant than those not, and such restrictions only affect those seeking treatment also becoming a deterrent to proper treatment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uniteforsight.org...
http://www.bbc.com...
Debate Round No. 3
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

I have the right to not be shot by a mental patient.
Arganger

Con

All voters, Pro's final statement will be used to support my final argument, and conclusion.

"I have the right to not be shot by a mental patient." -Pro

This shows that the entire basis of Pro's argument was stigma, and stereotyping. I have shown that the mentally ill are far more likely to be victoms of violence than perpetrators, and Pro has made not even so much as one backed up argument against any of my points.

Therefore I implore you to vote Con!

I conclude.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 month ago
John_C_1812
The issue is misrepresented. The Constitutional order places the way Mental Health is used as an accusation placed on a person, and no longer a diagnoses for a medical treatment. Keep in mind all Citizens of the United States Have a right to common defense. This means the person who is placed under attack using mental duress has a right to address the mental duress of the attacker.

Some-one can be driven by use of intentional harm into a state of Mental Duress. This type of an attack does not openly give permission as a right. The defense becomes a desperate attempt a declaration of personal Independence.

Interesting debate I am looking forward to see how it turns out.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 4 weeks ago
Ramshutu
NKJVPrewratherArgangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to CON, pro made little attempt to engage, and started off with a personal attack from the off. Not good. Pro was calm throughout and did a good job of remaining the adult. Arguments: pro didn't really make an argument at all, save for simply stating those with mental illness shouldn't have guns which is more of just an opinion. Con made it easy for pro by conceding half the debate topic and focusing on the mental illness portion. He defended his position, and even addressed pros blurted statements about people with mental illness shooting people; con argued that this is an issue of stigma and stereotype more than anything else, a position pro did little to counter. Sources to con too, as pro made no citations, and con made several good quality examples of sources to support some aspects of his position.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 month ago
Ragnar
NKJVPrewratherArgangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Rather than coming up with valid counterpoints, pro committed ad hominems, outright calling con a troll merely for offering a different opinion (which is the very point of a debate). ARGUMENTS: Strangely pro could have won this easily, all that was needed was a callout to the resolution in question, but pro seemed to account the changed one to focus on mental illness (the debate was on mentally healthy people, usually the mentally impaired would be a seperate debate) but pro seemed fully accepting and even embracing of the new topic. Con gave a decent argument regarding rates of mental illness, which pro decided to trop and just remind us that he genuinely thinks a different way than con, but did not elevate this into a real debate.