Should Guns be banned in the U.S.
I shall assume the first round is for acceptance as their was no argument provided by con in the first round and it was not noted that I should go first.
I accept and shall be arguing that the U.S should institute a gun ban.
Good luck to con, I look forward to an educational and rigorous debate.
Further more if guns are banned then crime will increase because there will be nothing stopping criminals from easily praying on law abiding citizens (FYI the cops usually don't make it in time)
When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment it was so the citizens could defend themselves against all threats foreign and domestic.
Well since Con provided a brief argument, I shall as well be quite terse.
Constiutionality: " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Well, if we are to examine the highly regarded amendment, we find that the right to bear arms seems to apply to a well regulated militia. No individual is synonymous with term militia, none the less a well regulated one. Individual safety is also not included, the safety of the state is reffered to.
Chicago has the highest crime rate and strictest gun control in the country. Studies show that 40% of prisoners who committed violent crimes got their guns illegally, instead of making the country safe you'd just be making it so that we'd have nothing to defend ourselves from criminals, sure there will be pepper spray, tasers, and knives but a gun has much more range and stopping power, and the cops rarely make it in time to save victims.
If there was a gun ban that doesn't mean gun owner won't be willing to fight for their right to bear arms. 1/4 of Americans own firearms, and Chicago has the highest crime rate (except Detroit) and strictest gun control in the country, imagine Ferguson style riots all throughout the country.
Men with guns are what made this country free, and men with guns will keep it free.
So would you rather have the ability to defend and support yourself, or depend on the government to.
Notice Con has not responded to the constitutionality point, as he can not ratinally interpret the second amendment to where it grants individual gun rights.
He has also did not respond to my point on availability in regards to gun bans.
I would like to call his source into question. "Brieitbart" appears to be a secondary news website with a great conservative bias. The site is analogous to some Alex Jonesesque blog. Also why didn't con just link the study and not some conservative interpretation . Chicago had the MOST homicides of any US city. So even if crime overall decreased, increased gun don't seemed to have decreased homicides.
Also the Armed forces keep this country safe, not citizens with fire arms.
Ferguson riots are an unjustified non-sequitur. In no other country that has instituted a gun ban has riots occured.
|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||2|