Should the Government allow citizens to own guns?
Debate Rounds (4)
1) No trolling
2) Although sources aren't necessary, they are recommended.
3) Don't attack the person, attack the logic.
4) Profanity is allowed, but only to make a point, not to make yourself sound cool
By accepting the debate, you agree with the above rules.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2-3: Debate
Round 4: Closing arguments
1) Tighter gun restrictions cause less crime.
Gun restrictions don't make society safer, rather, gun restrictions make an already dangerous society even more dangerous to live in. After all, you are taking away the self-defense mechanism of law-abiding citizens. An example of a place with tight gun restrictions, yet still with high crime is Chicago. There, citizens are barely allowed to own a gun, yet still has seen 500 people murdered with guns, the highest of ANY city in the country. Another extreme example of this is Paris, France. There, citizens are not allowed to even own a gun, yet still was the cite of one of the deadliest terror attacks since 9/11.
2) If there aren't any guns in the society, it will be much safer.
I totally agree that a society 100% without guns would be safer, but having such a society is impossible. The MOST you can accomplish with gun laws is to strip innocent, law abiding citizens of their right to self defense. How will the criminals get guns you ask? Well, there's such a thing as the black market. If they can get illegal commodities such as drugs, what is it about guns that makes you think it will be any different?
3) The 2nd amendment is out-dated.
The second amendment may have been written in the 1700's, but that does not make any of the values it stands for out-dated. In fact, the fundamental right given to the people by our founding fathers wasn't in case people were passionate about hunting, nor even (though I'd like to believe it) self-defense. The second amendment was written in case the government became too powerful or oppressive. The people would have a means to overthrow the corrupt government. For example, in the 1930's, people in Europe were told that "we need to protect our children" (which is surprisingly similar to what we hear today). In an effort to keep children safe, citizens willingly gave up their arms. However, when the Nazis came, they had no means to defend themselves. I'm not saying that the leaders in Washington are like the Nazis, it is that we need to have guns just in case something happens.
Now that these myths have been debunked, I shall proceed to argue why we need to have guns.
1) George Washington.
George Washington said "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people"s liberty teeth and keystone under independence""
2) Most of the people lobbying for gun control are the ones with armed guards with them 24/7
I hate to break it to you, but if all the guards and guns guarding these politicians were taken away, they wouldn't last 1 minute before pleading to have safety. Not all Americans have 24/7 trained guards willing to take a bullet for them.
3) It's not like you can just waltz in to a gun store and swipe your credit card.
People who have legal permits to own guns go through extensive training on gun safety, and when to draw a gun. These people also go through background checks EVERY TIME they want to purchase a gun. If people don't follow these steps, then they are already illegal gun owners.
4) People aren't all cackling maniacs.
The average American never draws his gun outside of a shooting range.
5) Wait till you have to watch your wife get raped in front of your eyes
If there is a home invader in your house that's threatening to kill you, wouldn't you like to have a gun rather than watching defenselessly as the invader kills a family member or you?
6) Guns prevent more than 2 million crimes a year
Many crimes are stopped with guns, so whoever thinks that without guns, we will have a safer society is "peddling fiction." Imagine that if in San Bernardino, one of the office members had a gun. Do you think that the act of terrorism would have gone so far?
7) Guns are like insurance.
If you have house insurance, does it mean that your house will burn down? It's unlikely that will happen, but you need to be prepared. Gun owners don't itch for the moment they have to draw their guns. They dread it. It's just like car insurance. You never want to wreck your car, but just in case, it's there.
8) Gun owners don't like to kill.
Gun owners realize that guns kill people. They don't like to kill people, but when faced with the choice, they'd much rather kill or seriously injure a person who attacked them FIRST, only when it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, then die themselves because of an evil human being.
9) No guns in a country doesn't make a difference.
If you look at the US compared with countries where you can't own a gun like, say, France, you'll realize that the there isn't a difference in murder/crime rate.
The list could have gone on for 50 points, but let's just leave it at that for this round.
A citizen (given, a United States citizen) as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is recognized as "an inhabitant of a city or town entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman" (Webster, 2016). Eligibility in its context, correlates similarly to the basis of becoming a citizen defaulting a "right-of-privilege" to those who are eligible. During this debate, keep in mind "federalism"; black-and-white federal powers trickling down to illuminate the law and statutes of each individual state. Before comparing any two examples, first define the scope of duration the question or argument omits. Second, ask whether the question reveals an answer, or merely more questions.
1) Many firm Second Amendment believers think a "controlled" gun policy (proposed by Obama, for example) is a revocation of right given to them by the Constitutional Bill of Rights. Like guilty pleas, abortion clinics, even the IRS, they take secondary precautions by enhancing the controlled variables in such action to successfully measure the beneficial risk further explained:
- 2015, abortion clinics were progressively required (depending on state) to meet with a given psychologist in order to confirm the need/want basis of an abortion.
- This one-on-one meeting was done after seeing the baby in an ultrasound
- The further along the mother was, the more number of days to meet with that psychologist of the abortion was required (1 day: 9-12 weeks 3 days 13-16 weeks)
- This not only ensured the mother of her actions, but the psychologist to measure the totality of the circumstances.
2- The above example, is used as a phenomenon. "Controlling" gun inhabitants, is the means of even preventing the sales of firearms at gun shows-to anyone even without proof of a license (no, this is not a second Amendment Violation).
3- Before comparing even a state to the entire country, let alone the United States to any other country, first consider:
A) The race-ratio of Chicago, before arguing Chicago has stricter gun laws but more gun-related violations.
B) The United States holds the upmost power of itself, and its reputation; U.S has the highest number (by very, very far) of incarcerated prisoners. According to the FBI bulletin postings, most of those prisoners are serving time for non-violent crimes.
C) Obama's statement of the East Room Jan 5th, 2016, summarizes that 1-30 convicted felons have the opportunity to purchase firearms through the Internet (also, 1 out of 30 person searches of such a purchase over the Internet, was intercepted as the illegal transaction of a convicted felon), or off of someone else.
30,000 gun deaths of all categories, eliminating the black market for those criminals reduces gun inflicted deaths caused.
4- Listed, is a factual baseline, solely for the year of 2015:
*study found 300 million+ guns (1 gun per every 2 persons)
*372 mass shootings (1 school shooting in the U.S per every day of the year)
*64 school shootings
*42 law enforcement officers killed from gunfire
* 986 citizens killed from gunfire, from law enforcement gunfire
The Constitution came from the divine right of kings, rather than personal freedoms. 11 years after signing the Declaration of Independence, federalism introduced the fair and equal diversity of rights in order to out-weigh the belief of a superior central government, as you stated. Under the federal system, the stated have power to provide flexibility of needs and problems, while the central government deems responsibility to handle "National Problems". The United States of America was the first ever to use this type of systematical government; given to the citizens of this country to "provide public order and an efficient justice system".
1. To what extent proves any officer/registered owner of a firearm, knows how to properly use it?
2. To what amount of human loss for the Stars and Stripes "in which it stands as one nation" to defend a right we've over erred?
3. Under what circumstances, may our self-destructing Constitutional beings be respected?
4. If a nation whom granted "rights" to their citizens is at a loss for change, unwilling to sacrifice for the same nation they stand as one with; what change will our footsteps reach if at a loss to travel in the same path of our founding father's?
Langepatekjaeger forfeited this round.
Derekk_D forfeited this round.
Langepatekjaeger forfeited this round.
Derekk_D forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.