The Instigator
RyanR619
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ArgentStorm
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should we have the right to bear arms?

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: 7/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 566 times Debate No: 35586
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

RyanR619

Pro

I believe that all law-abiding citizens should have the right to bear arms. If you disagree accept this debate and make your argument.
ArgentStorm

Con

I apologize for the brevity of my opening argument, however I was called into work tonight during the time I had set aside to work on it, so it is unavoidable. I will limit my opening points to three in order to ensure my opponent has adequate space for both his rebuttals and his own arguments. I suspect my opponent will argue that firearms are necessary to protect us from criminal action. If he does believe this, he may want to re-examine the numbers, as...

(1) Statistics

Statistics indicate that you are actually less safe if you have a firearm in your home than if you do not. An Emory University study (1) concludes, "[f]or every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense." While this may seem shocking, it makes sense when you consider...

(2) Psychological considerations

Psychological studies have consistently demonstrated that the mere presence of a weapon primes us to react more aggressively (2). Once a weapon has been drawn, be it in threat or in defence, the situation has been escalated and it is now less likely than it was that the situation can be defused without violence. An armed society, far from being a polite one, is actually a more aggressive one.

(3) Liberty

In discussing whether the second amendment of the United States constitution is necessary to ensure liberty, I believe it is important for us to note that no other product has been granted similar constitutional protection. Soda bans are enacted, drugs are prohibited, and restrictions are even placed on the rights of some people to vote, and it doesn't provoke as visceral of a response as threatening to take away a right that very few people use for more than recreation."It is also notable that repealing the second amendment would not, in itself, make firearms illegal. No other product receives such protections, so why should firearms?

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

2. http://m.psychologytoday.com...
Debate Round No. 1
RyanR619

Pro

RyanR619 forfeited this round.
ArgentStorm

Con

ArgentStorm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
RyanR619

Pro

RyanR619 forfeited this round.
ArgentStorm

Con

ArgentStorm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RyanR619 3 years ago
RyanR619
yes.
Posted by ArgentStorm 3 years ago
ArgentStorm
For clarification, as this is a debate regarding whether the second amendment ought or ought not to be in place, we will be disregarding legal and constitutional arguments and the difficulty/impracticality of constitutional reform, correct?
No votes have been placed for this debate.