The Instigator
paulbrevik
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dan4reason
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The second amendment should NOT be restricted

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: 11/9/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,346 times Debate No: 40241
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

paulbrevik

Pro

Please only accept this debate if you believe in gun control. I would like to have some things explained to me that piers morgan simply ignores on his show.
Dan4reason

Con

I will accept this challenge. I look forward to addressing some of the arguments made by Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
paulbrevik

Pro

Firstly, gun control has not worked in the past. In every case, we have seen crime rates increase after gun control is passed. Even England, with their low crime rate and high gun control, had even fewer crimes per year before the gun ban. This phenomenon is universal. It occurs in the US, Europe, Russia, South America, Jamaica, the list goes on. The reason is quite simple. Criminals don't obey these laws, which only disarm people who obey the law. This encourages criminals to attack or rob the sitting ducks that are citizens. Another reason is that the second amendment acts as a deterrent against oppressive government. The reason America is the freest country is that we have the 2nd amendment.
Dan4reason

Con

I should have done this sooner but I will start by defining some terms. Pro started off by claiming that the second amendment should not be restricted. The second amendment is as follows: "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."

My opponent then proceeds to attack gun control laws in this debate so I am assuming that this means that my opponent believes that when access to guns or other weapons is being restricted or regulated, the second amendment is being restricted.

Let us now look into what gun control is what gun control we have. The definition of gun control by wikipedia is "The term "gun control" means any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to define, restrict, or limit the possession, production or modification, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of firearms. [1]" Laws restricting large weapons such as machine guns are part of gun control and laws restricting certain people from having guns is also part of gun control. We need a license to hide a gun. Also people who have gone to prison for more than a year cannot own guns [2].

One gun control law that is absolutely necessary is the provision that ex-cons cannot own guns. This is because people who criminally offend are more likely to offend again. This is a great way of making it harder for the bad guys to get guns but keeping it easy for the good guys.

Personally I believe that we have the right to keep and bear arms however we do need some controls to make sure the wrong people do not own guns and that some really dangerous weapons like machine guns and grenade launchers are not publicly available because they do more harm than good and increase the threat of terrorism. There is just no reason why we would want an ex-con to have a gun. These are people who are likely to use them.

Firstly, gun control has not worked in the past. In every case, we have seen crime rates increase after gun control is passed. Even England, with their low crime rate and high gun control, had even fewer crimes per year before the gun ban. This phenomenon is universal. It occurs in the US, Europe, Russia, South America, Jamaica, the list goes on.

Could you provide some evidence to back up this claim? I was unable to find anything to back this up. Also keep in mind that I do not support a gun ban only reasonable gun control.

Criminals don't obey these laws, which only disarm people who obey the law. This encourages criminals to attack or rob the sitting ducks that are citizens.

When guns are outlawed, large gun companies are barred from distributing guns, and police remove guns when they are found. Because of this there will be fewer guns out there and it will be harder to get a gun if you are a criminal. Therefore crimes involving guns will fall. This is true even if some criminals have ways of illegally getting guns.

The US has a gun-related murder rate of 3 out of 100,000 while most European countries have a rate of less than .5 [3]. So if extreme gun control does not reduce the crime rate and only makes it worse because people cannot defend themselves than why is the European gun murder rate so much lower than that of the US?

Another reason is that the second amendment acts as a deterrent against oppressive government.

I am all for that however there is only so far you can go to do that. For example it would be unwise to allow everyone to own missile launchers or bombs as a way to defend themselves against the government. This will just end up unnecessarily killing lots of people. So it is necessary to limit the kinds of weapons people can have. If we bar ex-cons from having weapons, most people will still have guns and will be a deterrent against oppressive government.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org...
2: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com...
3: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
paulbrevik

Pro

paulbrevik forfeited this round.
Dan4reason

Con

Extend my arguments to this round.
Debate Round No. 3
paulbrevik

Pro

I am not in favor of allowing convicts to own firearms. They are a risk to society. However, the evidence shows that laws do not take guns away from criminals. [1]

In the countries I named, here is a source to back up the fact that gun crime increased following the implementation of strict gun control.

My opponent states a scenario in which guns are taken away by police and thus criminals are unable to obtain them. However, the majority of criminals get guns which are untraceable, either by stealing them or getting illegally made or imported guns. So the police have no way of finding them, and thus, crimes do not decrease. In fact they increase. [2]

My opponent refers to the difference in gun crime and laws between europe and the united states. However, he can only point to a few examples of countries with strict laws and low crime. However, a Harvard study found that strict gun laws do not lead to low crime. [3] Even in poster countries for gun control, such as the UK, their murder rate increased to its present day 35 from a much lower number after they passed sweeping gun control. While still low, the evidence shows that the gun control increased murder rates to several times what it was before. Even in the united states, we see this. Crime is heavily concentrated in the few cities which have high gun control. This becomes even more so when they pass more laws, and crime diminishes when they repeal them. [2]

I agree with my opponent's stance on the second amendment's acting as a deterrent. I believe any law abiding citizen should be able to own any small arm they choose. Small arms being rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc. Heavy artillery can already be owned, but it is so expensive and difficult to acquire that it is never used in crimes.

But I stand by with my question, why is it that these gun laws always increase the crime in the area in which they are implemented? Chicago, DC, England, Russia, all these places have passed strict gun laws and yet see crime rates go up. They will not increase it so much as to bring it to the top ten violent countries list, but people are dying from these laws nonetheless.

[1] http://www.pbs.org...
[2] More Guns, Less Crime. by Dr. John Lott
[3] http://www.breitbart.com...
Dan4reason

Con

Dan4reason forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
paulbrevik

Pro

paulbrevik forfeited this round.
Dan4reason

Con

Dan4reason forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
Agreed with (Paul Brevik)
The second amendment should never be restricted at all...
No votes have been placed for this debate.