The U.S. public should not be able to obtain firearms

Since pro suggested no structure I will do so.

round 1- acceptance
round 2-4 - positions/ rebuttals

1. public -of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

As citizens of the United States we are guaranteed the right to carry firearms from the second amendment. I don't think this right will ever be changed. However I recognize that this is a should debate so I will debate the resolution.

I predict My opponent will make many flawed statements throughout this debate. Those statements I will underline and refute.

Ccitizens of the U.S. can now relatively easily obtain firearms for whatever purpose they wish.

This is not true. To legally obtain a firearm one must register there weapon and posses a licence to carry weapons. So as we see not all Americans can easily obtain firearms as pro suggests.


I think we can all give up our guns to get rid of the negative affects that guns have on our society.

I ask my opponent to please list the negative effects that guns have on our society. I also ask him to think if these problems with society would still exist even without the guns.


1. If the public did not have firearms then pepper spray or a close quarters weapon would do fine as self protection.

If police men used only pepper spray or close quarter weapons then they would not be much effective and would die more frequently. These type of weapons are not going to stop terrorists nor are they going to equip law enforcement with the weapons needed to take down someone sniping citizens. These weapons also may not protect a person if they are getting robbed. Lastly we want to reduce our risk of harm as much as possible. Far ranged weapons reduce our risk of harm because we are not close enough to have a physical confrontation. If citizens were only equipped with pepper spray and knives there risk of harm would increase and people would not be so willing to defend themselves because of the increased risk of harm.


2. If the public did not have firearms, public shootings that kill innocent people and greatly affect many others would not be possible.

My first response to this is of course we we did not have guns we couldn't shoot people. But does the removal of guns remove the possibility of innocent people being killed? No even if citizens could not legally posses guns there would still be those who purchase illegal guns. The citizens would have no way to protect themselves against these people. Also guns don't kill people people kill people. that means there are more ways to kill people than with just guns. If someone wants to kill people they don't need a gun.

SO my point here is that even if we ban guns that action is not going to stop a killer from killing people because guns are not the only weapon capable of killing people.


3. Many countries such as South Korea already do not allow their public to have firearms. Therefore the public relies on close quarter weapons and martial arts to protect themselves.

Let's not forget that there is a black market here. Lets not also forget that the police are equipped with guns. In most situations martial arts does not protect a person from a robber with a gun.


4. Gang wars would not be nearly as life costly

Gangs are most of the time going to use weapons. be it close range weapons to beat their victims or guns. Lets realize that most gang members get their guns illegally so they can't be traced. So what is a gun ban going to do? Nothing but increase the amount of guns purchased illegally and increase the amount of money in the sellers pocket.


5. If the public did not have firearms the assassination of the President would be impossible.

This is one of the most flawed statements made by pro so far. If I can prove that assassination of a president is possible without a gun this point fails miserably. A assassin can simply use a bow and arrow, a Molotov cocktail,a bomb etc... this point fails.


I understand that pros intentions are good but changing our second amendment rights and banning guns are not going to stop people from killing others at all. A gun ban is not going to make our communities safer. At most this will give robbers more of a motive to steal since they may not have to deal with a treat of a gun. Banning guns is not a logical way to stop crime. The defense rests.

Well, my opponent has conceded. Therefore a con vote is logical and justified. The defense rests his case.

Vote for me.