Should the U.S. Ban Firearms?
Debate Rounds (3)
The United States was founded with the right to own guns. Cities within the United States such as Chicago have some of the highest murder rates and the strictest gun laws in the country. The reason for this is simple. Citizens looking to commit a felon target others without protection from the second amendment. Would you rather break and enter into a house that has a likely chance of the owner having a gun, or a house where the owner has a very unlikely chance that they have a gun? You would choose the house with the unarmed owner.
Countries such as Mexico have very strict gun laws but look at how well they are doing. Their country is overrun with cartel members running the streets for one simple reason. The citizens cannot rise against them because they are unarmed due to the strict laws.
The second amendment gave the citizens of America the right to own firearms not for the purpose of hunting or sporting. The amendment was issued so that citizens may rise up against a tyrannical government should the United States turn towards that way of life. This can be seen in Nazi Germany. What was the first concept they issued when they started their path towards anarchy? They stripped the citizens firearms so that they could not fight for their lives when their own country rose against them. Had the Jew's and other minorities been armed, they would have at least had a chance of fighting and surviving the purge sent against them.
What if the U.S. government turned tyrannical and purged against you and your children? Would you hand over your firearms and let your children be slaughtered in masses or would you fight for their lives using firearms?
When Liberals turn to the argument of preventing mass shootings seen in places such as Aurora and Sandy Hook, they say that had a firearms ban been issued, these events would not happen. This is simply not true. Look at the ban on drugs through most states. Bans on drugs don't stop those from dealing and using them. We cannot stop them from coming over the border from Mexico. This would be the same case with firearms. Liberals think that if you do not agree with banning guns, you do not care about the children as Sandy Hook or other victims. This is a simple bully tactic. They refuse the facts and turn towards a more emotional argument which is simply idiotic.
Implement better background checks. Make sure that the buyer is mentally stable before you sell them the firearm. There must be laws implemented to create a more responsible firearm owning society.
To quote the renowned genius Albert Einstein, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." According to this philosophy, the gun system of the United States is quite deranged. Each year, 100,000 Americans are killed as a result of a lack of gun control. Since 2000, there has been nearly one mass shooting per month in our country.
Despite this, commonsense legislation regarding gun control continuously fails to be passed. I believe that the Gun Debate in America is not one of whether guns should be banned in entirety. It is a question of whether reasonable gun laws should be enforced to protect the lives of everyday American citizens, including "your life and your children's life." Gun Control activists ask for universal background checks, lower capacity magazines, a ban on assault weapons and other similar laws to be instilled, not a ban on all firearms.
You mention Mexico. While it is true that Mexico does has very strict gun laws, they do not have the money nor the manpower to enforce these laws. As the Mexican government is not nearly as strong as the American government, this is not a reasonable comparison. A more realistic comparison would be that of Australia or England. In these countries, with similar strength and political philosophy, the concept of gun control has been successfully instilled. These countries saw the issue that a lack of gun control brings and acted upon it. Their laws have had staggering results, 60% of murders in America are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to the mere 11.5% in Australia.
The second amendment of the United States is probably one of the most common arguments for not implementing gun control laws. For some reason, it seems that the second amendment has stopped the passing of any gun-related laws and has an absolute power over any reason/logic. The Constitution is the backbone of the nation but some exceptions must be made. For example, although we are constitutionally allowed the freedom of speech, you can not scream "bomb" on an airplane.
America has laws governing almost everything, so why are lethal weapons the exception?
Can you please explain to me how 100,000 American's die as a result of a LACK of gun control? I believe the right to protect myself and others in my community should not be taken away or restricted. As citizens of America, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This alone should enforce the right to own firearms. Had some of those 100,000 people had been in possession of a firearm, the tally of deaths would be greatly decreased.
Banning firearms show's no results as shown in my previous argument with Chicago and other large cities.
I think we can come to a consensus with regulation on firearms. The debate question we are supposed to be arguing is regarding a blanket gun ban across the United States. The goal of the left is to eventually have a blanket gun ban across the country. Also, many gun activists are uneducated to what a "assault rifle" even is. Dianne Feinstein says the goal is to ban all firearms. Bloomberg also wants a total ban. Assault rifles are used in 2% of crimes so why ban assault rifles? Handguns are used more frequently in crimes.
The fact that a mass shooting occurs every month in the United States is a matter of conditions. Let's take Sandy Hook for example. The mother of the deranged killer was not a responsible gun owner. I believe that laws need to be placed in order to insure that owners of firearms are more responsible. She left the firearm available to a son with a mental illness.
Crime rates have dropped 40% since 1992 as a result of gun ownership increasing. Guns are saving more people then they are killing by 40%.
If you want to ban guns, then you should ban items such as cars and knives. A man in China stabbed multiple people in a span of a couple of minutes. If you want to regulate guns and their specifications, you should be arguing my side.
I am very happy to be debating with another teen debater. This is as well my first debate.
I would like to address your statement that possessing more guns would greatly decrease deaths. It is simply not true. With this logic, America should have the least deaths by gun than any other country in the world as we have twice as many guns per person. Factually, this is not the case as America's gun murder rate is more than 20 times the average of other developed countries. Additionally, in practice, 0.8% of victims of gun violence say they responded to their attackers by either using or threatening to use a gun. In countries like Australia, gun control significantly decreased gun deaths as the firearm homicide rate dropped by 59 percent and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent since stricter laws were enacted.
Candidates such as Donald Trump and Chris Christie also use Chicago as an example of why gun control could never work but adamantly ignore some crucial facts. In Chicago, studies have shown that sixty percent of guns recovered from crime incidents had been purchased in states outside of Illinois, where gun laws are significantly less strict. Twenty-four percent of guns came from the states of Indiana and Mississippi, where guns are not regulated. Thus, the "strictest gun laws" in the country are not to be blamed for the high murder rates in Chicago but rather the negligent restrictions in surrounding states.
You ask, "why ban assault rifles?" I believe the answer is quite simple as I am educated on what an "assault rifle" is (by definition- "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use") Assault rifles have been used in numerous mass shootings across America and although account for less deaths than hand guns, are responsible for both the annihilation and destruction of American men, women, and children. This is simply unfathomable; there should be no case in which a machine gun is necessary for an average American citizen to put into use. Assault weapons and large capacity magazines can easily change a small tragedy into a horrendous massacre. In the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, twenty-six lives were taken with an assault weapon. This number could have been greatly decreased if the shooter did not easily obtain a MILITARY-STYLED gun. It is clear that assault weapons provide ongoing danger nationwide.
I definitely agree with you that laws need to be created in order to ensure that owners of firearms are more responsible but this is only a small portion of what must be done. The fact that a mass shooting occurs at least once every month in America IS a matter of conditions but these conditions mostly all relate to a lack of gun control. 160 school shootings have occurred in America since 2013, proving that obviously actions must be taken to improve this country.
You mention that crime rates have dropped since 1992 "as a result" of gun ownership increasing. I agree that crime rates have dropped and I agree that gun ownership has increased, pairing the two however is simply a logical fallacy. In fact, despite falling crime rates, the number of gun murders a year in the U.S. has remained almost constant since the 90s.
Again, I apologize that I misunderstood the debate (I am still trying to grasp how this website operates) but believe we are still on very different sides of the Gun Debate spectrum and would like to finish the debate. Also happy to be debating a teen debater!
The studies you talked about that show "sixty percent of guns recovered from crime incidents had been purchased in states outside Illinois, where guns are not regulated" show that where you ban guns, criminals will find a way to get them. Let's take the drug ban for example. The majority of states have a ban on marijuana but that does not stop criminals from obtaining, intaking, and distributing to others. This would be the same case with rifles. We cannot stop drugs from coming over the border from Mexico, so how do you expect we stop guns from coming over the border?
You will never be able to keep the guns out of the wrong hands. This comes with a free society such as America. I will quote my friend who I have talked about this issue many times with. "Ever step towards regulation is a step away from freedom". America is a nation founded on the principle of freedom and regulating magazine capacities, what types of guns you can buy, or whether guns should be banned or not is a step away from America's sole purpose.
A example of how regulation does not effect the outcome of Regulating knives is not going to stop stabbings. A regulation of knives already in practice is blade lengths one may own. This strictly varies from state to state. Let's make a example for us to use. Lets say that one may not own a knife with a blade length over 7 inches. Will that regulation stop a criminal from purchasing a 6 inch blade in the same state and stabbing someone?
Merriam-Webster Dictonary defines "assault rifle" as "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use." The keywords here are "designed for military use." Banning a assault rifle is simply pointless. A assault rifle can be semiautomatic. Most pistols are semiautomatic so why stop yourself at assault rifles and just go after all the guns?
You simply cannot regulate or stop ownership of assault rifles.
Your previous argument of lowering capacity magazines is taking away ones right to life. Many magazine capacity regulations force a 15 round capacity. When you have a intruder in your home, you are in a high-stress, high-panic situation. Many are very inaccurate when in this situation. It is not like when you are at a gun range and you are nice and calm. You have a very low chance of hitting your target when in a situation like that. The criminal you are going against doesn't care for regulation or laws considering they broke into your home. This means they probably do not follow the 15 round magazine capacity regulation. You are at a big disadvantage against that felon.
Would you feel safer in a society that only criminals have guns? Or would you feel safer in a society that healthy-minded, good willing citizens have rifles and are willing to protect you. I know I would have the latter.
Overall, great debate! Really intriguing what you brought to the table and made me think more about the topic but I still firmly stand with my beliefs.
makeadifference 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.