The Instigator
GrisezDakota
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheNamesFizzy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should there be gun laws to prevent ownership of an "unnecessary" weapons?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 540 times Debate No: 66042
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

GrisezDakota

Pro

Anyone accept this debate??
TheNamesFizzy

Con

I accept. Thanks for the good topic! Excited to attempt comprehension of this point of view.
Debate Round No. 1
GrisezDakota

Pro

Thank you, now before I start I want to clear some things up by unnecessary weapons as in an AK-47, or any gun that fall in this category. Now the second amendment of the United States Constitution quotes "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," ratified in 1791. I bring this up in my argument because it is this reason that there haven't been any laws being established today. The other argument to this is "I need to be able to protect myself against another enemy with a gun." reminder to anyone reading this debate I'M NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE THEM, I'M SAYING THEY SHOULD BECOME MORE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN. Every patriotic citizen who's heart is bigger than their brains believe that our government is trying to take them away (Obama). This may be true in the case that an American citizen does not need and RPG, a flamethrower, an AK-47 and many more, but not as many as they are NOT trying to take from you. With these weapons the government wants to make them harder to obtain. Now back to the ratification of the 2nd amendment in 1791 since then there have been many wars and roughly 1,278,430 deaths of americans in war the number may be higher with any war I may have not counted. Also, this is not counting any school shooting, or public shooting that has ever occurred you may be looking at millions of more deaths. My favorite quote on this topic comes from the comedian Chris Rock and i quote "for the same reason I can't drive a Nascar down the street, i shouldn't be able to have a machine gun in my house across from a school," even if this is meant to be humorous he makes a great point. You aren't going to shoot anything with an AK-47 and you are only going to be able to look at it anyway. Absolutely no point in having one.
TheNamesFizzy

Con

Thank you to my opponent for presenting arguments. I will present a roadmap of my arguments then move to rebuttals.

1. Guns act as an equalizer between criminals and the citizens. It allows a physically weak individual to stand up against a criminal who could be robbing a store etc. More powerful weapons allow the job to be done more effectively. If gun restrictions are enforced the only people with assault rifles etc will probably be the criminals, who are not concerned with the legality of it, while the citizens are.
2. Guns allow a "well regulated Militia" and the only way to have this is with allowing the citizens to defend themselves. A revolver is not a sufficient weapon when the government has drones and a wide variety of technology at their disposal. In this sense as well, guns act as an equalizer between the citizens and the government.
3. Impossible to enforce in areas of the world. The United States being a good example, the culture surrounding guns has existed for enough time to where removing some weapons from citizens could be a potential danger.
4. Extra gun laws have been shown to not have conclusive results on crime reduction.

Now moving on to my opponents case.

"reminder to anyone reading this debate I'M NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE THEM, I'M SAYING THEY SHOULD BECOME MORE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN. "

This raises the question, what are the specific alterations to the current system that would make weapons more difficult to obtain? The resolution is specifically talking about "unnecessary" weapons, which is a term used for weapons such as assault rifles etc. And you also used the word "prevent," which implies you are denying access to some people. Clarification needs to be had for what exactly this encompasses and what the Pro is actually arguing for.

"an American citizen does not need and RPG, a flamethrower, an AK-47 and many more, but not as many as they are NOT trying to take from you. With these weapons the government wants to make them harder to obtain. "

I am merely arguing these weapons, while some regulations should exist, should not extend to preventing all sectors of society from owning such weapons. As we've seen in the past when tyranny and totalitarian governments are in control of citizens, it is incredibly beneficial to the citizens to have weapons that are effective against it. With revolvers and small weapons it makes it easier for the government to oppress it's citizens and treat them more as subjects, than people.

" My favorite quote on this topic comes from the comedian Chris Rock and i quote "for the same reason I can't drive a Nascar down the street, i shouldn't be able to have a machine gun in my house across from a school,"

The idea that just because we have more laws restricting gun usage actually results in fewer crime rates is a claim that requires evidence. A quote by Chris Rock does not suffice as a warrant for this claim. Criminals will always be able to find a way to harm others if this is what they want to do. Hell, you can search on Youtube how to create a bomb and create one using household materials if you are looking to harm others (which by the way, would be much more effective than a machine gun).

" You aren't going to shoot anything with an AK-47 and you are only going to be able to look at it anyway. Absolutely no point in having one."

Even so, in the case of oppression and government becoming corrupt, it allows for further protection. It's also important to recognize that a lot of individuals in the United States, specifically, take pride in their weapons. Enforcing this law would be nearly impossible, because a lot of these individuals have the mentality of "If you want to take my guns, come and get it" which could potentially cause further violence and the death of innocent people. I ask my opponent for evidence this would be possible to enforce

Thank you, I negate.

Sources:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com...
Debate Round No. 2
GrisezDakota

Pro

Most of what you say may be true, but more than none it is all false accusations. I will start on what is or may be true.

"Guns act as an equalizer between criminals and the citizens"

As true as this may be how do you specifically know? Also, can a women lets say 130lbs really have to strength/time to load and shoot a AK or shotgun? How can you make this statement and not back it up?

Next,

"Criminals will always be able to find a way to harm others"

This is true 100% why? Well let"s stop and think. Oh wait don"t think! Guess what you did anyway wanna know why? Because I can"t control the way you think. I can"t control what anyone believes or thinks, and honestly for a lot of people in the world they could be thinking anything at all. One second we are think about work, than how we want to kill our boss for pushing that project on us, or killing the guy in front of us because he just cut me off. Now, of course not everyone thinks this way, but there still are people that do. There have been stories that people murder each other over road rage.

Lastly,

"Enforcing this law would be nearly impossible, because a lot of these individuals have the mentality of "If you want to take my guns, come and get it" which could potentially cause further violence and the death of innocent people."

Of course the law would be impossible to enforce all laws are and no law is absolutely perfect and if there is please let me know. People do what people want to do. I am happy; however, about your statement of the mentality of Americans because this goes back to the part of I can"t control you. The reason why no man or woman needs an AK-47, RPG, etc is because people are both selfish and cocky. This mentality you have used proves the exact point I am now making. The only thing is if you invite them in don"t be upset if they do.

Now there were MANY things my opponent said that was completely false. Firstly, as ridicules as it is to start you can not find any bomb videos on youtube. They were either all fake or how to make a bomb prop.

Your source about Harvard can not be used to back up your argument especially "Extra gun laws have been shown to not have conclusive results on crime reduction." Notice how they did not write who the author was or anything about them so credibility can be given. Yes, it is in this paper which dates back to August 30th 2013 but it seems as Harvard looks down upon gun ownership laws, but explain why in the Washington Post Harvard did research a year before your article with the statement "found that there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders," than another source of mine is from the Harvard website itself on the issue of more gun ownership the more suicides. This will bring me to my next argument how can you explain that to me? Should we keep guns in the hands of people with depression, bipolar, disorders, anger management, etc? Are people truly fit to own a weapon if their lives or their family"s lives are in danger to none other than THEMSELVES? Can you say for a fact that if more people have guns suicide rates will go down just like homicides? Which by the way given in my next source from the huffington post "If we look at all 50 states, as I did using 2010 census data on the homicide rate per state and correlate that with the Brady's state ranking of strict gun laws, we find a correlation of about .05," Do you know what a .5 correlation looks like? Well let me tell you it takes a .7 to even begin to see a trend of a line so a .5 is basically a bunch of scattered points. Now, in some point in our argument we can use the examples of Chicago and New Orleans. Which holds the highest crime rate the difference is that Chicago has the strictest gun laws, whereas New Orleans does not; however, we can not use these statements because these cities have been the highest for decades before, during, and after gun laws. So please answer these questions.

Also do not get confused by the two sources when I say gun ownership vs. non stranger homicides, and gun laws vs. homicides these are completely different.

Thank you.

Sources:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... (suicide)

http://dailyfreepress.com... (the correlation between gun ownerships and non-stranger homicides)

http://www.washingtonpost.com... (#8)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (no correlation)
TheNamesFizzy

Con

"As true as this may be how do you specifically know? Also, can a women lets say 130lbs really have to strength/time to load and shoot a AK or shotgun? How can you make this statement and not back it up?"

I was specifically referring to physical ability. It acts as an equalizer between a criminal with a knife with superior physical capability and a person with a firearm.

"This is true 100% why? Well let"s stop and think. Oh wait don"t think! Guess what you did anyway wanna know why? Because I can"t control the way you think. I can"t control what anyone believes or thinks, and honestly for a lot of people in the world they could be thinking anything at all. One second we are think about work, than how we want to kill our boss for pushing that project on us, or killing the guy in front of us because he just cut me off. Now, of course not everyone thinks this way, but there still are people that do. There have been stories that people murder each other over road rage."

Doesn't support the affirmative argument.

"Of course the law would be impossible to enforce all laws are and no law is absolutely perfect and if there is please let me know. "

I never stated any law is absolutely perfect. I am stating that this law in particular would be literally impossible to enforce.

"this goes back to the part of I can"t control you"

If you want to make a law to stop "unnecessary" weapons then you are trying to control people.

"Now there were MANY things my opponent said that was completely false. Firstly, as ridicules as it is to start you can not find any bomb videos on youtube. They were either all fake or how to make a bomb prop."

This is legitamately a completely false claim. It is widely known tutorials for making weapons of destruction are available on the internet. To say there is nothing on the internet that teaches people how to kill others is false.

She then brings up some evidence conflicting with my Harvard Study, however judges, if you look at the actual link posted in her sources for that Washington Post article it completely contradicted what was just stated. Taken directly from the article:"Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland." This is directly supporting my argument in the article that was posted in the sources of my opponents arguments.

Also, important to recognize my opponent dropped the argument for how it is important as a tool against tyranny and oppresion

In summary:
1) Impossible to enforce this policy
2) "Unnecessary" weapons don't actually increase crime rates. My opponent has the BoP on this argument, but has not posted any valid evidence supporting this claim
3) Weapons can be used as a tool against tyranny and oppression as I discussed in my first constructive.
Debate Round No. 3
GrisezDakota

Pro

Since it is the last round i must do my conclusion for this debate. Even though i could argue hours on end with my opponent. Here are the facts. FACT: my opponent only used one source that credited a study that was done by Harvard where I also have one that completely contradicts my opponents sources. FACT: my opponent is using 3 different arguments that are completely overused or invalid. "Impossible to enforce this policy" well of course it will be. Any law would and is. He's second arguement is invalid comsidering my arguement was not just about homicides and guns, but guns as a whole. which by the way FACT: there is a high correlation between suicides and gun ownership. Correlation shows the realtionship between two factors and between these two factors is that the more gun ownership, higher suicide rates. Which is based on pure logic that maybe my opponent can't understand but ill make it simple. More guns more suicides. Again FACT. Also, I'd like to bring to attention that my opponent never argued my statement on suicides. So ill ask again Do we give weapons to the people with depression, bipolar, etc.?
Lastly, your 3rd arguement is a completely true statement, but for as long as America has been a nation when was the last time we were fighting tyranny in our own country? I'll answer that since it is the last round July 3rd 1776. Have you been forced in your home because tyrannical acts? No. You haven't. My opponent has based his own side of this debate based on opinion and not fact. For the last time FACT.

I conclude. Thank you.
TheNamesFizzy

Con

Why you should vote for the negative in todays debate.

First: My opponent has admitted on multiple occasions that it is impossible to enforce this law: "well of course it will be. Any law would and is." I would like to point out that practicality must be pulled in to measure a specific law being passed. That's why the measuring system of the Cost Benefit Analysis exists. We don't just pass a law without seeing if it is enforceable.

Second: His "sources" support my position, as I pointed out in my last speech. I pulled quotes directly out of his sources that came to my conclusion in the Harvard article.

Third: "but for as long as America has been a nation when was the last time we were fighting tyranny in our own country?" First of all, this isn't just about the United States, I was referring to other countries as well. Second of all, under that logic, we should have no checks and balances system to check the power of the government. Governments have flaws (even the United States), and corruption is one we see repeated throughout history. Rome was a flourishing country, and I'm sure people didn't expect it to fall to barbarians anytime soon. Also, the right to a militia is a form of checks and balances system. The government knows they cannot oppress sections of society without a threat of rebellion.

I urge a vote in negation.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
And what if the criminal has a fully automatic weapon? I would want one too and have that option.
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
I got the impression he means weapons such as fully automatic assault rifles or other weapons that have alternatives more practical.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
What is unnecessary? If a criminal has a 38, I would want a 45. If a criminal has a magazine with 12 rounds, I would want one with 15.
Posted by raddestguns01 2 years ago
raddestguns01
If you define what an unnecessary weapon would be in this debate, I will be more than willing to accept.
No votes have been placed for this debate.