There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms.
I thank pro for making this debate.
I would like to give some insight in to where my POV is coming from. I am all for responsible gun ownership. I realize that like all other rights that these rights are not absolute. As an example there are in fact reasonable limits to free-speech rights, and I am of the view that there are and should be reasonable limits to gun rights as well.
I am not sure what has caused me to be more vocal on the gun control issue. It may have started August 5, 2012, when sitting at a stop light. The cop across the way suddenly turned on his lights and took off for the Sikh temple a mile and a half up the road(given the timing, that car most likely held the cop that the shooter shot). Or perhaps it started October 21 2012, when I realize 2 days before hand I had drove by the spa that was shot up .
Now please don't think I am anti-gun, I just started hunter safety last Monday and hope to buy a gun yet this year, and if I become a threat to others I hope the government by powers granted in the 5th and 14th amendment (due process) takes away these rights as well, to prevent abuse of them.
Lets take a look at some of the things Pro said
Pro said "Sure, people die in the U.S from guns. But they also die from car accidents, drunk drivers, curable diseases, and gang activities"
This is a red herring, in context it does not matter that people die in numerous ways. We should strive to prevent all needless death, and failure to be as proactive in some areas as in others is not a defense to not acting where and when we can on one of the causes of needless death.
Pro said " ... When someone is murdered with an ax, you say "This is such a terrible man. Who could do such a thing?" But when someone is shot, you automatically attack the guns."
Actually I think they are horrible people too. So why do we look at guns? It is simple of all the tools you noted, fire arms are the only ones designed solely for the intent of entering live flesh in order to kill; it can produce the fastest kill rate; and it is long range. In the case of all the other tools noted, the tool is being used improperly in hand to hand combat where an unarmed victim may have some fighting chance.
Pro said "So stop putting all the blame on the guns"
Pro is the one that set up this debate. The proposition is about "There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms." It is my plan to look at the total argument
In this debate. I will focus on arms and not just guns. It would seem the proper definition of "arm" is "A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms."
One of my key contentions is that we currently do limit gun ownership. an example of this is, in our current society no civilian has an automatic right to own an RPG. RPGs are arms yet access to them is restricted by laws. Oddly enough you don't hear people up in arms(pun realized after the fact) that they can not get RPGs off the shelf no questions asked.
For the proposition, "There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms.", to stand Pro needs to successfully argue existing laws need to be struck down along with any future laws on this issue. To argue any less that that is to take my position that the right to bear arms noted in the second amendment like all other rights are subject to reasonable limitations which include limited prohibitions and restrictions. Does Pro believe that stopping a felon from buying an RPG is infringing on the right of that individual to bear arms, and that it is absolutely wrong to do so no mater what mitigating circumstances. We do have laws that limit who can bear arms and what arms they can bear, yet Pro has not touched on this yet.
The government can and does take guns away from people. In Wisconsin if you are caught poaching the DNR will seize your guns. Now perhaps Pro will suggest poachers forfeit their rights to their guns by their actions, but that is my argument that reasonable restrictions and limitations are warranted that the right to bear arms is not absolute.
Pro said " Sure, it'll be a pain to reload, but when a crazy, lunatic killer is shooting, I'm sure he doesn't mind the imposition."
And one question to put to Pro, should we limit the rights of mentally ill people who are homicidal to bear arms? I say Yes, if they are a perceivable danger. What say Pro?
Pro said "People are too quick to trade their freedom for security."
What freedom or safety do the 32,163 people that died due to firearms in 2011 have? That is 10.3 deaths per 100,000.
Honestly I can not make heads or tails of this comment by Pro. Do guns equal freedom and no guns equal security or do no guns equal freedom and guns equal security?
Pro has offered a very weak argument for the right to bear arms to be an unrestricted right, predicated on bare assertions that such restrictions will not fully solve the problem of mass shootings, while ignoring the fact that there are laws already on the book that restrict or prohibit gun ownership.
To argue against building a smarter mouse trap because if we do nature will make a smarter mouse is a poor excuse for why we are not dealing with a rodent infestation.
Now, about your argument on the 32,163 people that died in 2011 from firearms. You ask me what freedom or safety they had? They still have their freedoms. But they chose not to exercise it. Like this man did, http://pjmedia.com...
And this man, http://fishgame.com...
My point is, the answer to, "What freedom or saftety" is simply this: they have the same freedom as every single law abiding citizen, and there saftey is invaded when a man with a gun confronts them because they don't have a weapon to fight back with. If they would exercise their right to bear arms, how many people do you think would be cut out of your statistic? Sure, not all of them, but a huge chunk would.
With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. This is obviously a red flag and doesn't need any explanation.
Now, about the mentally ill owning guns. This once again is my fault for not making the debate topic clear. Of course I do not agree in the mentally ill owning firearms. Like I said before, I'm arguing that no future laws should be added to restrict gun ownership.
In 1965, homicides climbed up to be the 15th cause of death in America. Then, in the early 1990's it placed 10th. But in 2010, it dropped back to 16th. Now in 2011, it went back up to 15. Now these are just homicides, they aren't all done with firearms, but if in 2011, homicides are the 15th cause of death, the same as 1965, how has it increases so much?
Look at Utah, it has some of the loosest gun laws. But somehow in 2001, it only had 1.9 homicides for every 100,000 people. That is one of the lowest out of all 50 states. But yet stricter gun laws will prevent murders? I just can't see the logic in that when all the statistics say otherwise.
Lastly, I'd like to address the freedom and security. What I mean by that, is that people don't want to protect themselves. They want to live in a world where they can call the police to come protect them. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and the everage response time for police is 10 minutes. In those ten minutes, what can a sick, crazed man do to your and your family? My point is, is that people want to feel secure, right? And people in America have freedom, right? Well, as you stated in your statistic that the 32,163 people that were murdered, felt like they were not secure, why didn't the cops show up in time to save them? Because as much as we want to believe it, our government cannot protect us from everything. We have to stand up to protect our family. Gun laws aren't going to stop criminals, murderers, and rapists from having guns, it's only going to take them away from law abiding citizens. It's not the guns that are killing. It's the people that are holding the smoking barrel. And I feel as if people tend to forget that.
Although I do believe there are ways to stop gun violence, I do not believe taking firearms away from law abiding citizens is a solution.
I'd like to apologize in advance for any spelling or grammar in this argument. I had to use my phone to write it all, and things got rough to type.
I hope voters realize that Pro is trying to change the subject of the debate. Also I ask the voters should I be annoyed with the comment by Pro "The topic of the debate might have confused you". What did I confuse exactly? The proposition is clear. In no way is the proposition equivalent with the idea "there should not be any new laws to restrict the use of firearms to healthy, mentally stable American citizens". So rather than suggest I was confused, I ask Pro to take responsibility and admit they did not carefully consider the wording they used.
In this new proposition Pro wants to replace the title proposition with is one that he adopts a view in line with my argument that the right to bear arms can be limited for rational reasons. Rather than coincide, Pro wants to debate on a different subject.
I advise Pro in the future to take their time responding to think about what they are saying, and what they mean to say. We each have 3 days to reply and you can't un-ring a bell. So one must be sure its the right one.
I ask voters to vote Con since Pro has given up defending the original proposition and has agreed with Con's view.
Now that my objection is clearly noted, I will argue against Pro's new debate, as there are 2 rounds still to go and I would hate to disappoint the voters.
"You ask me what freedom or safety they had? They still have their freedoms. But they chose not to exercise it. Like this man did,"
Most people find blaming the victim to be a deplorable thing to do, but further more you ignore the deaths of individuals shot with their own gun, like this unfortunate person http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com... The question remains. What freedom or safety did they have? What about the 851 people who unintentionally died at the hand of a gun in 2011. What freedom or safety did they have? This question is still unresolved.
"If they would exercise their right to bear arms, how many people do you think would be cut out of your statistic? Sure, not all of them, but a huge chunk would."
This is the fallacy known as begging the question. You have not provided evidence to show that carrying a gun would take a "huge chunk" out of gun deaths. Furthermore the 2 part video along with the University of Pennsylvania study talked about later are counter evidence to your naked claim. The majority of conceal carry holders lack the proper training and continual practice to be effective in a hostile situation.
"With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011..."
Pro's asserted fact but sites no source, creditable or otherwise and is couched in so many qualifiers that it is meaningless. Plus the shooter in Tucson was not taken down with a gun. The fact that guns were allowed is meaningless because the existence of firearms in the crowd has no implication on how the event played out. Pro's "fact" establishes no base line. Public shootings in which 3 or more die are rare. For Pro's "fact" to mean anything we need to compare it to the total of public shootings.
"This is obviously a red flag and doesn't need any explanation."
I think it does Pro have seemingly implied that a correlation proves a causation, yet another logical fallacy.
Now perhaps one may have noticed how I used fact in quotations. There was a shooting where 15 people died the location had armed guards (in other words citizens were allowed to carry if they were a guard) Columbine. Now sure my example is on the fringe. It is my opinion that semantically it does fit Pro's definition. But maybe you the voter don't buy my semantics. That's fine because if Pro's "fact" excludes public shootings where armed guards were on site then what meaning can it hold?
"Of course I do not agree in the mentally ill owning firearms. Like I said before, I'm arguing that no future laws should be added to restrict gun ownership"
These 2 ideas are at odd. Most if not all state have no psychological examination requirements. As a result only people with previous mental illness as declared by the courts are excluded from gun ownership. It is way too easy for an actual mentally ill person to obtain guns. Pro wants to prevent those with mental illness from obtaining guns, a feat easily accomplished under current law. The Tucson shooting proves this. So is Pro reasonable here? While wanting certain people to not have guns, Pro is also unwilling to pass laws to fix these issues.
"That is one of the lowest out of all 50 states. But yet stricter gun laws will prevent murders?"
Given only one data point one can not make any valid claims. Pro suggests it is Utah's loose gun laws that lead to the low gun death rates, but as far as I could know Utah may be an outlier. There are any number of factors that play into the low gun crime rates. Pro has suggested that Utah's loose laws, which do not prevent a mentally ill person (which has not been ruled as such by a court of law) from obtaining guns, has caused the low gun crime rate. But Pro is not arguing for repeal of any laws where gun laws are tougher. If Utah is the shining star example, then why is Pro arguing for the status quo and not a universal adoption of Utah's laws?
"I just can't see the logic in that when all the statistics say otherwise."
If Pro would site their sources perhaps we too could follow or discredit the statistics.
"Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and the everage response time for police is 10 minutes. In those ten minutes, what can a sick, crazed man do to your and your family?"
In a University of Pennsylvania study, it was shown that carrying put you at a higher risk to being shot than some one who is unarmed. (They also honestly admit they don't know why this is(causation).)
"It's not the guns that are killing. It's the people that are holding the smoking barrel. And I feel as if people tend to forget that."
Some gun laws are aimed at restricting types of arms. Others are aimed at restricting the type of people. While Pro may think what they may think, the laws show we recognize that is the combination of right arm/s right person that leads to so much needless death.
"Gun laws aren't going to stop criminals, murderers, and rapists from having guns, it's only going to take them away from law abiding citizens."
Remember the RPG from R1? A citizen can buy one, given that they pass the relevant background check and pay all the fees including a tax of $200 each for a launcher or a round. When is the last time you have heard of anyone using an RPG to commit a crime? This idea that gun laws wont/can't prevent gun crimes what actual evidence do we have for this? It would seem to have worked for RPGs.
"Although I do believe there are ways to stop gun violence, I do not believe taking firearms away from law abiding citizens is a solution."
Any assault weapon ban will, like the last ban, grandfather in all assault weapons in current possession. But really this sentence of Pro is not well thought out. If all fire arms were banned with no grandfathering in, gun owners would not be law abiding and thus taking guns would not be against Pro's noted comment.
To sum up my main objection, Pro has no rational ground to argue from since the status quo is a patch work of gun laws. Pro is arguing that a state should not decided to make its laws mirror a stricter state while arguing at that the stricter state need not change its laws.
Now, as many people would agree with me, gun free zones are a very easy target for shooters to hit. For example: http://www.thenewamerican.com...
These people seem to agree that gun free zones are quite a target.
Now, I'd like to show my citations for my "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011..." response. Here is an article stating that. http://www.nationalreview.com...#
If you would like to skip to the part of the article, it is in the 13th paragraph (counting the short one sentence paragraphs in the beginning. Now, I would ask voters to read this article, as it has many great points.
For instance, "Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools." This is right out of that article (10th paragraph).
Pro tries to counter my "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011..." statement by saying "Public shootings in which 3 or more die are rare." Sure, they don't come around every day of the week, but they do happen fairly often. Columbine High School, Virginia Tech Shooting, Binghamton Massacre, Fort Hood Massacre, Aurora Theater Shooting, and the 2011 Tuscon Shooting. These are just to name a few mass shootings in the past couple of years alone. So to say "Public shootings in which 3 or more die are rare" is quite a long stretch. Also, take a look at these shootings, which ones didn't happen where guns aren't allowed? None. Each of these happened in a gun free zone.
Schools are all gun free zones. Look how protected they are to outside sources. So although I do believe in changes, I do not believe in changes to our Second Amendment should be made. You make this comment on how easy it is to obtain RPG's. How many shootings or crimes have been committed with them? Not many. How many people have them? In order to get one, you need a Class 3 license (not easy to get nowadays), especially since it is a "destructive device, you're going to need a very high end permit. Each round you fire even has to have it's own permit. And, depending in what state or county you live in, you'll need a blasting permit. Con makes it sound like you can just walk to your nearest gun store, drop some cash, and throw a fresh RPG on the back of your truck, but I assure you, this is not the case. However, look at marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, and methamphetamine, those laws worked really well huh? Look at the assault rifle ban of 1994, that worked well too. And lastly (there are a ton more examples) look at the handgun ban in Washington DC in 1976. http://www.justfacts.com...
Scroll down to the 9th gold tab, and you will see information about the handgun ban. Although in it's first couple years, it kept homicides from rising, after a while, homicides more than doubled! So tell me, what good did that do?
People tend to think, "If we make guns illegal, then the problems will just go away." When that isn't the case. I'd like to go back to drugs to use them as an example. America has some tough anti-drug laws, but we still lead the world in illegal drug use. http://www.cbsnews.com...
This will show you that even though these drugs are illegal, they are still being used. So tell me, what makes you think that outlawing guns will be any different? It has never worked in the past, so what makes everyone think it will go over smoothly now?
In your video, titles "Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part Two" it merely states... Well, exactly what the title says. However in this article, http://www.buckeyefirearms.org...
it talks about how concealed weapons save peoples lives. Now, you and this video are saying that concealed weapons are ineffective against crime. I disagree, as of last year, a man broke into my family's house. My father is an airline pilot, so he was gone. Luckily, he was on an international trip, so he left his Glock 19 at home. The man broke through our backdoor window, reached in, and unlocked the door to let himself in. It was about 11:30 am, and he was armed. We put my sisters in the upstairs bathroom, and had them lock the door. Called the police, and gave them the information needed. Now, this man did not realize we were home (we had one care at the time due to financial issues, and my father had that vehicle). I retrieved my lever action Winchester model 94A1 30-30 out of my room, as my mother got the trusty old Glock. The man was rummaging through our downstairs drawers and cabinets as we were upstairs in fear. We knew he was armed because we could see his shadow through our wide hallway. It appeared he had a pistol which was magazine fed, not a revolver. My mother stood up in out hallway upstairs and simply said "You are unwelcome in our home, and it is in your best interest to leave." She then proceeded to cock back the Glock, which gives quite in echo through the empty house. I was beside her and spoke, "I second that notion" as I cocked my lever action rifle. The man immediately rushed to the door in which he came in through, dropped our computer, and fled from our house. The police arrived about 15 minutes later.
That day, our firearms saved my family's life. Say what you will with your statistics, but I know on a first hand basis how critical firearms are for protection. If we had not armed ourselves, we would have been defenseless against that man. There are many stories that are like this on the internet, and this is my personal story of how a firearm saved me and my whole family. I could not imagine what we would have done if we wouldn't have been able to intimidate the intruder into leaving our house. How long would it have been before he came upstairs to find my mom and I? Even my sister's shaking in the bathroom. What could he have done to them in the time it took for police to arrive? That very thought scares the daylights our of me, and is an answer I never hope to know.
There are so many statistics, stories, and situations were firearms have been used properly to aid, and save innocent people's lives. Look here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Have you heard about this in the media? People are attacking the police, not the "assault rifles" they used. Come on, 137 rounds into a vehicle that is no longer a threat. That is just inhumane. Why not take away these rifles from the police? Because it is their job to protect us? Well it's my job to protect my family, and I'm going to use the same weapon that they can have. I'll take my Bill Of Rights, you can keep your change.
It is not a rebuttal but more so a complaint.
"These people seem to agree that gun free zones are quite a target."
The type of people that decided it would be a good day to shoot up a crowd are not thinking rationally. I was wondering of these shooters could Pro provide examples of them actually noting that the location they picked, they picked because it was gun free? Add to this the recent trend in gunmen wearing body armor and it is clear some of these gunmen are expecting guns.
Columbine High School, Virginia Tech Shooting, Fort Hood Massacre,
What do these 3 have in common? They all had armed personnel on site. The fact that your stat labels these as "gun free" is just plain sad.
"So tell me, what makes you think that outlawing guns will be any different?"
It is not my view, nor have I suggested that an outright ban is what we need. Reading about your home invasion incident leaves me thinking if only there was a way to make it harder for that invader to get a gun. I am told laws requiring mandatory background checks in every type of gun sale and cracking down on straw purchases would make it harder for criminals to get guns.
"Say what you will with your statistics, but I know on a first hand basis how critical firearms are for protection."
I understand what you are saying...
"What could he have done to them in the time it took for police to arrive?"
... any number of things, most likely run away. I cant even be sure this guy had a gun. I present a video to show an extreme case where the shadow does not look like the object.
Did pro fear for his life? I am sure. Was Pro's life in actual mortal danger? I do not know.
"I'll take my Bill Of Rights, you can keep your change."
Pro has already conceded this point at the start of R2 where Pro adopted my stance and agreed there are/can be reasonable limits to the 2nd amendment right to bear arms
" Once again I apologize for the change in the debate, and I would like to sincerely thank Con for changing his argument in order to go against mine."
This is by far Pro's biggest error. I have not changed my argument. It has been centered around the simple idea that the bill of rights list rights which are not absolute, that are in fact subject to reasonable limitations.
I have spoke about 2 suggested policy changes in this round. I would like Pro to explain why changing the law in these 2 examples is the wrong thing to do. I also suggest Pro consider their stated position once more.
"Like I said before, I'm arguing that no future laws should be added to restrict gun ownership"
I found this round to be lacking in direct affirmation of Pro's view. Being pro's first debate I hope the voters go easy on him. To Pro I give you words of encouragement in the from of the 2nd video.
I would like to note Pro did not address the University study that shows gun ownership increase one's likelihood of being shot.
I also question the creditability of buckeye firearms. It would seem that they are a biased. They also don't site any non-biased 3rd party research.
I leave Pro with a quote that has been checked and found to be factual by Politifact
"You know, Judy, the reality is -- and it's a terrible reality -- since Robert Kennedy died in the Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in " all the wars of this country's history, from the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World War II, in those 43 years. ... I mean, guns are a problem. And I think they still have to be confronted."
SamPrice23 forfeited this round.
Please see the comment section for Pro's argument.