The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
blamonkey
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Under no circumstances should arms be regulated

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
01day09hours13minutes29seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 201 times Debate No: 97379
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance and brief explanation of your position(no facts, statistics, etc should be used here)
Round 2: Main arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: More rebuttals/conclusion

Arms shall be defined for this debate as: items used for killing other people, this includes, but is not limited to, guns, swords, artillery, tanks, and everything the military has at its disposal.

Regulate will be defined as: to limit the use of arms for any reason.

I believe arms should not be regulated because it is a last ditch effort to guarantee liberty in the case of tyrannical government. They can be used for protection against other people, and a people who is unarmed cannot stand up to tyranny.
blamonkey

Con

I accept.
I will show the harm of lack of regulations on the sale of weapons.
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

I wish to open up this debate with two quotes:
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
R32;- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let"s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." -Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942

What these two quotes show, is that tyranny most easily comes to power when arms are taken away from the people. By only allowing the state to possess arms, it means that they now have all of the power and the people are powerless. What can people do against such a government if they disagree with it?

Liberty can only be defended by arms. When some people are allowed arms and others are not, that puts one group above another in power essentially, for what can the people who are unarmed do against those who are armed?

In addition, if the general populace is not allowed to have guns, but some people illegally obtain them and then go shoot at a group of people, that group of people has no means to defend themselves. So not only do guns protect us from the government, but also criminals. The police can only investigate a crime after it has occurred, they can't prevent them from happening, so they can't prevent you from dying from a criminal's gun, but your own gun can.

There is no reason whatsoever to regulate guns for the honest law-abiding citizen, and I would even argue that for criminals arms should not be taken away either, since they should still have a right to potentially overthrow a tyrannical government and defend themselves against other criminals. However, if they are a murderer, they would most likely be imprisoned for life anyways so wouldn't be able to use a gun anymore to harm anyone anyways.

There are many arguments in favor of gun control that I've heard of before I could address now, but I will wait for my opponent to make those arguments before I address them, otherwise this wouldn't be much of a debate, now would it? I turn this over to my opponent now.
blamonkey

Con

OBV 1

My opponent has left the definition of a regulation quite vague. He/she describes it as to limit the use of arms for any reason. This means that current laws that prevent people from buying weapons or using them also are eliminated.

Framework

We need to view today’s debate through the understanding that lives come first. This is the foremost principle of the US government, and any just democracy for that matter, which needs to be protected. This idea was planted in the heads of the founding fathers to the point that the preamble of the constitution states the following:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (1)

The founding fathers wanted the people to be protected and made sure to include the idea that the general welfare, aka the people of the US, is the entire reason that the constitution was made to begin with. This is exactly what government’s main function is. In fact, looking at the Social Contract Theory proves this. The theory suggests that people have a contract with their government where certain rights are given up, for example being tethered by laws and paying taxes, for protection and for their welfare to be respected (11). This was clearly important as John Locke’s specific Social Contract Theory was a huge inspiration for how our government works today. Thus, weigh every single impact to that metric.

C1: Safety of the people

Realize that existing and new regulations are needed to guarantee that people are safe. For this we can look toward a massive problem in the status quo that needs to be addressed, that being the unintentional shootings of children. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in coordination with the Americans for Responsible Solutions in June of 2015 reports that almost 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded, unlocked guns (2). This facilitates unintentional shootings all around the US that are unfettered without laws to prevent them. Everytown Research in June of 2014 reports that 100 deaths from accidental shootings of children occurred between December of 2012 and December of 2013, nearly 2 deaths every week. All the while, an estimated 70% of these deaths could have been prevented if the firearm had been unloaded and locked (3). However, people are generally unprepared for accepting responsibility, especially owning a weapon as shown by the fact that over a million children are living in a home where they could potentially retrieve a gun with very little effort, (see my Law Center card.)

That is where Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws come into place. James M. Jeffords reports from the Vermont Legislative Research Service to show what these laws are and why they are important. First, we need to understand what these laws are, so, Mr. Jeffords tells us that CAP laws are laws that provide a legal framework for how firearms should be stored in the US. For instance, one law would impose liability on an adult if a minor would be able to retrieve a gun that was negligibly stored, while others prohibit giving a gun to minor (4). However, despite the difference and variance of these laws, there is one indisputable fact about them. They work. Mr. Jeffords continues, citing the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1997 which estimated the effect of 12 different state CAP laws prior to 1994 and found that they decreased unintentional shootings in children by 23%. Not only this, but a more recent study in 2000 from the John Hopkins University school of Public Health found that Florida, which has the toughest and oldest CAP law in history, a 51% decrease in accidental shooting occurred over 8 years. While other states did not have the same effect, the report even admitted this could be due to a variety of other factors including the severity of breaking the CAP law in question, and even the fact that some states only recently established these laws (4). Finally, though, let us look at storage of these weapons in homes. Mr. Grossman and other medical experts in 2005 conducted a study to determine the link between safe storage and a reduction in accidental shootings. The result show that the 4 practices off keeping a gun locked, unloaded, storing ammunition locked, and in a separate location are each correlated with a protective effect and reduce the injuries in places where guns are stored. These regulations that address storage, and even laws that prohibit minors from receiving these weapons are important to limit the amount of deaths from irresponsible gun management. This resolution would eliminate all laws that correspond with “limiting the use” of firearms. However, regulations that limit the use of firearms means that the existing statutes that prevent minors from accessing and owning a weapon.

C2: Straw gun purchases

Second, we need to realize how this resolution prevents any progress forward to prevent gun crime. First though, we need to understand exactly what a straw gun purchase is in relation to firearms. Dan Noyes of PBS News explains that straw gun purchases are instances where an individual who is unable to purchase a gun by law uses a companion who purchases the gun, usually in a suggestive manner in the actual gun store by pointing or gesturing toward a preferred weapon, and gives it to the person who could not buy it on their own (6). While this behavior seems only minor and not important to begin with, by looking closer we can see the disastrous effects that these straw gun purchases have on the crime rate. In fact, well-informed individuals may already know a case where this tactic has been abused to commit a crime. The San-Bernardino shooters used this tactic to kill over a dozen people in a tragic shooting. Olivia Li of The Trace reports that one of the gunmen, Syed Rizwan Farook, asked his friend Enrique Marquez to buy 2 AR-15 rifles that were used in the shooting. This was not even used because he couldn’t pass a background check, as he already owned two pistols that he purchased legally. He just did not want these weapons traced back to him (7). However, we can see more evidence pointing toward the large impact that straw gun purchases have not just on homicides, but on the entirety of black market guns. Everytown in April of 2008 shows that 47% of gun trafficking cases involved a straw gun purchase, representing the largest source of how guns are trafficked. Not only this, but nearly all the crime guns trace back to a select few legal gun dealers, with 1% of these licensed dealers accounting for 57% of these traces (8).

These dealers and those who buy these guns are technically breaking the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS Blog retells the Supreme Court Case of Abramski v. The United States where in November of 2009 a police officer by the name of Bruce Abramski purchased a Glock 19 pistol for his uncle in Pennsylvania for saving some money on the gun. However, a year later he was indicted for lying on his background track by indicating that he was the buyer of the gun. He challenged this ruling which made it all the way up to the Supreme Court where, in a 5-4 decision they determined this practice to be a straw purchase and illegal (9). This widened the interpretation for what a straw purchase is. Unfortunately, this did not respond in more jurisdictions taking straw gun purchases more seriously. Hansi Lo Wang of NPR in December of 2015 explains that while the penalties for straw gun purchases at a maximum of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, many gun experts, including Daniel Webster, head of the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and retired Assistant Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, say that the reason many don’t get convicted is because prosecutors have to show a direct link between the straw purchaser and the person who received the gun through the other person as a proxy, which is hard (10). Because of this, many criminals will never face penalty and will put someone’s life at risk because of their negligent actions. The black market is prospering and criminals now have a steady supply of weapons. However, with federal action to scrutinize gun shops across America that are shown to sell to straw purchasers, we can stop this cycle of madness. Remember, most trafficked guns, including crime guns and straw gun purchased guns, are attributed to 1% of licensed dealers. This would mean that increased scrutiny for who can sell and increased regulations by scrutinizing straw-gun purchases will be the best possible solution to the problem at hand. But this resolution makes sure that any restriction on use of firearms would have to be stopped. This would include the laws governing straw gun purchases and future attempts at stopping the problem of straw gun purchases. Since we value the people in this debate, we have an obligation to negate to address the large bulk of murders in the status quo and to protect the general welfare of the people.

Conclusion

Realize that when viewing this debate through the metric of lives and the loss of said lives, the negation wins on the grounds of gun accidents occurring in youth and crime guns. Thus, negate this resolution.

Sources

1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
2. (http://tinyurl.com...)
3. (http://tinyurl.com...)
4. (http://tinyurl.com...)
5. (http://tinyurl.com...)
6. (http://tinyurl.com...)
7. (http://tinyurl.com...)
8. (http://tinyurl.com...)
9. (http://tinyurl.com...)
10. (http://tinyurl.com...)
11. (http://tinyurl.com...)

Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Pro

I wish to address the first example my opponent gave of Child Access Prevention laws. These laws do not prohibit the use of guns in any way, so it does not go against my original defining of regulating guns by preventing the use of them. However, I do realize one flaw in my argument that I concede, I never did state an age range on guns. I agree that young children are incapable of properly using a gun and can endanger the lives of others. Children should not have access to guns.

Since this is contradictory to what I originally said, because I had no limits on gun use outlined, and I didn't make everything clear, I will either concede this debate to my opponent for pointing out an instance that makes complete sense to regulate gun use, or if my opponent wishes to give me a fair debate now that I recognized an instance where I personally would be fine with regulation, we can set up a new debate specifically with you if you wish to do this one more time but with any instances where I think gun regulation makes sense is outlined, and where it shouldn't regulated is outlined as well.

It's up to my opponent, I will be fine with conceding this debate to them, or if they would rather have a more challenging debate, we could start a new one where I outline instances where even I see it as okay for there to be some sort of regulation on guns. One instance is that there should be an age minimum for purchasing a gun.

So, would you prefer to continue this debate where I concede, or would you rather set up a new one where I better outline exceptions to my general rule of that guns should not be regulated?
blamonkey

Con

I'll accept the new debate challenge, but I would still like you to concede the remaining rounds. But, yeah, I'll debate you again.
Debate Round No. 3
Capitalistslave

Pro

As I stated above, I'm conceding this debate
blamonkey

Con

Extend my points, please.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 6 days ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: lannan13// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Conceded debates are not moderated unless a voter votes for the conceding side. As this debate was unambiguously conceded by Pro and the voter votes for Con, the vote is not moderated. Future reports of votes on this debate that meet this basic standard will be ignored.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Overnight // Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro cedes this debate.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Conceded debates are not moderated unless a voter votes for the conceding side. As this debate was unambiguously conceded by Pro and the voter votes for Con, the vote is not moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Very competitive debate until the concession.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Conceded debates are not moderated unless a voter votes for the conceding side. As this debate was unambiguously conceded by Pro and the voter votes for Con, the vote is not moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 week ago
Capitalistslave
blamonkey: If you decide you want to debate me about this topic in a new debate, I can ask someone to delete this one, and we can continue in a new one. I am sending you a debate request now, you can of course just reject it if you want to continue with this one that I've conceded with.
Posted by blamonkey 1 week ago
blamonkey
I rarely argue my opinions. In any case though, there are some things I disagree with when it comes to my political ideology. I'm not completely libertarian. But I find it rare that someone agrees entirely with every single aspect of an ideology to begin with anyway.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 week ago
Capitalistslave
blamonkey: I just noticed, you identify as a libertarian, but you're arguing for gun regulations. That's odd. I suppose you probably think it is odd that as a socialist I am arguing for guns to not be regulated. It's as though we are arguing the opposite of what our ideologies stand for lol, however, I have a deep understanding of what socialism is about and guns are necessary for the overthrow of the capitalist regime. But, I don't understand how as a libertarian, you would be in favor of some gun control measures. I don't see how that is consistent at all, whereas, what I said above, makes it consistent with my ideology.

By the way, I identify as a libertarian socialist specifically, for I believe in worker-ownership of the means of production(socialism) and limited to no government(libertarianism) with maximum amount of rights guaranteed.
Posted by blamonkey 1 week ago
blamonkey
I forgot to add etc. to the end of my sentence, however, I do not think it matters. My main purpose was to explain that I would be arguing for some regulations.
Posted by EgalitarianDuck 1 week ago
EgalitarianDuck
I am intrigued i will think of accepting this debate
Posted by Overnight 1 week ago
Overnight
I think I will accept, but I cannot currently now. Hopefully I will be able to later.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 3 days ago
ThinkBig
CapitalistslaveblamonkeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 week ago
lannan13
CapitalistslaveblamonkeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 week ago
dsjpk5
CapitalistslaveblamonkeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very competitive debate until the concession.
Vote Placed by Overnight 1 week ago
Overnight
CapitalistslaveblamonkeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cedes this debate.