The Complete Banning of Firearms in the United States
Debate Rounds (3)
This is my first debate :)
Round 1: Opening Argument
Round 2: Rebuttel
Round 3: Conclusion
Guns do more good than harm in the United States. Although there are many mass shootings and homicides there are far more cases in which guns are used in self defense. Regardless if the 2nd Amendment actually grants the right to gun ownership I believe it is an important deterent to tyranny, foreign invasion, and crime.
I have some problems with the points that you brought up:
1. "Without the abundance of fire arms, accidental death and murder rates would plummet." - First off, in the case of the United States, when you take firearms out of the equation murder rates skyrocket. For example, Chicago has no civilian ranges and has banned assault weapons. Now wouldn't you expect them to have a low death by gun rate? Nope! Chicago leads the nation in murder. Also, we can examine Washington D.C. There they have even have bans on handguns. Obviously, such laws explain why gun crime has only increased since the legislation was created and D.C. also leads the nation in crime.
2. You say "Without fire arms, civilian casualties during war would almost be unseen as one does not just kill hundreds with a knife." I fail to see exactly what your point is. You do understand that during war civilians would be killed by a foreign army and not other civilians right? I'm not sure what you're getting at. However, civilians owning guns actually helps to combat any kind of invasion. Take the Free French Army for example. They're a civilian force armed by guns that civilians owned that killed thousands of Nazis and are called one of the most effective forms of resistance to date.
3. "The Utopian society that would emerge would prosper with good health, peace, and less violence." The United States has thousands of miles of unprotected borders with Mexico and Canada. Tell me how we could keep guns out of the country if the first place. I'd just like to give you some notable examples of countries who have banned firearms: China, North Korea, the former USSR, Nazi Germany, Cuba, etc. Now I'm not saying that there aren't countries that have banned guns and experience very low gun crime rates but a 2007 Harvard study shows that banning firearms doesn't actually lower gun crime.
People love to believe that the United States has this outrageous gun problem but in reality our homicide by gun rate is nearly the same as Liechtenstein’s. (Just to put it in perspective)
nevedarkwolf forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 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: Forfeit, though at least he was kind enough to state why, so conduct remains tied. Con's argument wasn't exceptionally good, though. He analyzes cities that have banned guns when the discussion is about a nationwide ban (which would have significantly higher impact on the number of and access to guns). He talks about preventing invasion with a civilian army, neglecting that such an invasion would take place with tanks, bombers and destroyers, all of which would be little affected by a person owning a semi-automatic rifle. Technology has moved forward since the 1940's, and unlike the Nazis, such an invading force would be able to use much of their resources to destroy such resistance groups. Just seems like there are easy routes of attack here.
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.