Should the right to bear arms be amended or abolished?
Debate Rounds (3)
Please approach this debate with as much objectiveness rather than subjectiveness.
Formalities out of the way, the thesis of my argument is simple: firearms cause MORE harm than benefits. Yes, firearms "protect" you from other people that have firearms. Yes, firearms "protect" you invading forces. And yes, owning firearms is a RIGHT. However, putting it into modern-day context, do we really need firearms?
Firstly, allow me to dish out some numbers comparing America to other countries that ban firearms, New Zealand and Singapore. USA vs NZ (2009 - 11,493 : 11 Gun Homicides, 68.415% : 8.209% Percentage of Gun Homicides Against Total Homicides). USA vs SG (2011 - 11,101 : 0 Gun Homicides, 69.586% : 0.000% Percentage of Gun Homicides Against Total Homicides) Those are STAGGERING facts. Aside from that, there have been numerous mass shootings that have occurred in 2012-13: Aurora Shootings, Sandy Hook Massacre and Washington Naval Yard Shooting. In the past decade, there have been many more, most notable was the Virginia Tech Massacre. Imagine that. Based on pure facts alone, it shows that firearms are more detrimental than beneficial to society.
Secondly, it is my strong belief that the constitution should be amended to fit the day. In times when the British Red Coats were invading and there WAS a need for personal protection, the 2nd, without a doubt, made sense. Today, are there any external threats that demand firearms? Or are the threats within? Amongst each other? Put it into perspective there are more Gun-Related injuries and deaths in America than in Afghanistan? Does that mean Americans are a more DESTRUCTIBLE enemy than the Taliban or the Al-Qaeda? It is my hope that the YOU the people see my point of view, that the 2nd Amendment should be abolished, or at least altered to fit the demands of the 21st Century. It is also my hope that the opposition deal with my case with the most objective point of view and let us have a fruitful, thought-provoking and civilised debate.
A. Call the cops and hope they get their before the man can harm anyone.
B. Grab a weapon and protect your son THEN call the cops when the threat is no longer there.
If you choose A the man probably will harm your family before the police arrive, or not even give you the chance to call the police.
If you choose B. What weapon do you choose?
A. A gun.
B.A baseball bat.
If you choose A you are safe.
If you choose B you better pray he doesn't have a gun of his own. A criminal won't obey laws. A criminal will have a gun.
Bad guys don't follow the rules. Well, they wouldn't even be able to break the rules without having guns. Tell me, how would they obtain the guns then? Let's say they still manage to somehow bring guns in. What could families do? Same answer, tighten security. Install a house alarm, I'm sure the police would be there quick. Guns NEVER solve the problem. In fact, they make it A LOT worse.
Now, let me pose you with my scenario. What happens if the bad guy's wearing body armor? Bullet proof armor isn't hard to construct. Your gun probably won't do much to save your life. The reason for self-preservation is the rather ancient reason or excuse to allow gun use. Learning martial arts probably makes better sense than owning a gun.
Another scenario. Bad guy has a gun, you have a gun. The two of you meet. What then? Mexican stand-off? Either way, it ends badly for you or for him, and being a seasoned criminal, my assumption, it's going to end pretty badly for you and your family.
Scenario 3. Gang comes into your home. They got guns, you got gun. Husband/wife has a gun. Well, it's definitely going to end bad for you.
Best and most possible scenario. Bad guys have gun, you have a knife/bat. You know your house, they don't Terrain knowledge and knowledge of your surroundings is of paramount importance in the battlefield like my dad always told me. You know how to get out, they don't. You escape; your kids and spouse safely in your embrace. Police come and apprehend the culprits. Anything stolen is returned and that makes a scary, but awesome story to tell your grand kids because everyone survived. Now, won't that be nice rather than you killing the mystery man or you being killed?
Last scenario. Your husband comes home late after spending some time in the bar with the guys catching Friday Night Football. Mystery man is him. Walks up the stairs, hoping to go into bed and cuddle with his loving wife. Wife gets scared, thinking it's Jason. Draws a 9mm Glock 19 out of the drawer. Husband comes into the bedroom. Wife opens fire. Kids wake up, rushing to Mom and Dad's bedroom, only to find Dad, dead on the floor. 10 years down the road, when the kids look back and ask themselves, what happened to Daddy? Mommy comes into their head, with a 9mm Glock in her hand. Happy ending?
Now, on to my second argument, about the Declaration of Independence. Now quoting from the Declaration, it states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Now, the Right to Life is an inalienable right, how about the lives of those who were cut short by a barrel of a gun? Is that inalienable? Sandy Hook's 20 kids, all below 8; their lives were taken by a gun. The right to pursue happiness is an inalienable right? The students who lost their lives in the Virginia Tech Massacre couldn't pursue happiness because they were murdered, yes murdered by a gun-wielding psychopath. In all of these, almost all of the victims didn't even live life yet, they were all still young, now they remain young forever. Most of the kids at Sandy Hook probably didn't even have proper dreams of what they wanted to be when they grow up. Now, they never will. The VT professors and students, students awaiting the challenges of the outside world, will never face them. Why? Because there had to be a gun in the picture. The most surprising, the Washington Naval Yard shooting that killed 13. It was a military base, a Naval Yard. It was less than a year since the Sandy Hook Massacre, things should have been tightened up, but even then that just proves one thing: weapons in the wrong hands will cause serious damage, no matter the time, no matter the place.
The scary thing is, the perpetrators all attained their guns, legally, in one way or another. Seung-Hui Cho, the VT Massacre perpetrator, obtained his firearms LEGALLY. The waiting period, the background checks, all those procedures didn't deter the man from killing innocent students. He HAD a permit. Adam Lanza, killed his mother with her own gun that was LEGALLY PURCHASED, went on to kill 27 more people and wounding 2 more. Even Aaron Alexis's guns were LEGAL. These killers, all obtained their guns within the confines of the law, but they ended up breaking it and shattering the lives of others as well.
Now, my dear opposition and readers, yes, I do concede that the bad guys would always have a gun, but they would obtain it legally. Shocking isn't it? I bet, if the founding fathers were here today, they would be shocked at the situation of firearms and how much destruction it has caused internally. Again, total number of death due to guns in America annually is more than the total number of KIAs in Afghanistan. Shocking, isn't it?
Hell, as a child I felt safe from the monsters under my bed because I knew my step dad has a gun in his room and if one came out to get me all I had to do was scream and he could come in and shoot the monster!
Now for another scenario. Everyone over the age of 18 has a gun of some kind. Someone pulls there's out trying to pulls some sort of hostage situations. Everyone ells in the room pulls out their guns and points at the would be criminal. Situation solved.
The topic didn't stand for the total elimination of firearms, it also stood for the amendment of the 2nd. Perhaps stricter laws, or more stringent background checks, anything that would make life safer for you, for me and for everybody else. If my dear opposition or the dear audience read my entire two "essays," you would all see that yes, I have an unflinching hatred towards guns and yes, it may SEEM like I'm looking for a complete ban of firearms, but truth is, I'm not. Sure, I'm against firearms, but I know there are people, true (or "true) patriots such as yourself Mr Opposition, that still want firearms because of your belief that firearms protect you and your loved ones, even though that ideas has been addressed in ALL my scenarios. Look at Switzerland, It only had 40 firearms homicides in 2010. The Swiss have found a middle-ground, America hasn't. I'm partially FOR that, finding a middle-ground because only then, people would't have conflict.
After presenting you with my case, I hope you see through to understand this: Firearms are dangerous, and firearms falling into the wrong hands is deadly. Now as the future leaders of the world, our generation HAS to find the middle-ground, like Switzerland. Why don't they have mass-shootings? Why aren't there senseless killings at night? WHY DO THEY HAVE GUNS AND YET MAINTAINED SUCH A LOW CRIME RATE? These are the questions younger Americans have to ask, for a better future. Answers don't come easy, but it is out there. It's just dependant on whether or not YOU want to search for it. The reason why I made this debate motion was simple: to send across a message that yes, guns are never the answer, but there is a peace between guns and, well peace. Time magazine wrote this article awhile ago (http://world.time.com...) and it is my sincerest hope that ALL of you out there, be it young or old, use this article as a source of hope that people can live in harmony with weapons. I quote a statement I typed out in the first round: It is my hope that the YOU the people see my point of view, that the 2nd Amendment should be abolished, or at least altered to fit the demands of the 21st Century (line20-21). And yes, it is my true hope that EVERYONE do their part to make this world a better place, with or without firearms. To my dear Opposition, thank you for a engaging, thought-provoking and rather speedy debate. To my dear audience and readers, I thank you for keeping up with the debate and please, go with the side that makes the most logical sense, rather than pure emotions. Remember, the case of firearms shouldn't be addressed with pure emotions, rather it should be addressed with both emotional and logical reasoning.
http://www.gunpolicy.org... - Gun stats
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... - Aaron Alexis gun permit
http://edition.cnn.com... - Seung-Hui Cho gun permit
My brain - Scenarios
http://world.time.com... - The Answer?
And please excuse me, I thought you were saying guns should be banned all together. I have a slight problem that causes me to not completely understand what people are saying half the time. It also causes me to some times question if I'm hallucinating reality.
I'll agree with you that guns can be dangerous. I would NOT give guns to someone who has mental disabilities or a 5 year old kid, or even myself. However I would like someone with them to protect me.
Now because of my problem I stated above I'm scared to continue this argument in case of another misunderstanding.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
|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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Clear Pro victory. The statistical analysis of more guns meaning more crime was dropped, and Con's self defense impact was taken out by the singapore analysis.
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.