We should ban most (if not all guns) in America/ ROTW
Debate Rounds (5)
The American Constitution is one of the most fundamental ideologies that govern the country, along with the bill of rights, declaration of independence and manifest destiny. The 2nd amendment states "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". It is the response to the potential threat of oppression and a tyrannous government. If ever the government were to infringe unlawfully on people's rights, the citizens of America could unite together and form a militia. Many people might say that this is as far as the argument goes, because it is rooted in the Constitution there is no chance of changing it. However this is old-fashioned and ineffective. For example, Jackson Koch, a senior at the iSchool explains this view by saying that the amendment was fitted for "back then we had muskets, " we didn"t have guns that could kill 30 people in 30 seconds." By the same token, much like the first amendment, it is not an absolute right. . Also if something that was immoral was rooted in the constitution then it would come down to a democratic vote as to whether or not it should remain. Even more popular documents such as the bible have been altered so this illustrates that it can be done.
I am proposing that most guns be banned in the USA, and ROTW, however due to the scope of the latter it is unlikely to be solved in our lifetimes. I believe the only guns that should be allowed are shotguns, and hunting rifles. This way you can still have some form of protection and also continue with hunting and protecting livestock/eliminating pests etc. I see absolutely no reason why automatic guns, armor piercing bullets and high-capacity magazines should be allowed. It seems that the original aim of the amendment has been distorted and misinterpreted (much like the mythical American Dream) and now people simply use guns as a hobby. Que NRA. If this were to be done, the ridiculous firearm crime rates in America would significantly drop. Just compare the crime rates of USA and UK, notice how the "murder with firearms" statistic in America is 668 times more. 14 vs 9369. Also America has 82% more "total crime". This is not to mention the various mass shootings and slaughter of children that have happened in America (Sandy hook) on multiple occasions.. People often argue that to take away people's guns would leave them open to criminals, but I believe the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals. Most criminals are not looking to go on rampage killings, so as long as you are unarmed, you are not a threat to the small amount of organized criminals who somehow obtain banned guns. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run is a quote from a handgun control book. Also, a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
Another reason would be to support public policy. Although it is often believed that Americans are all as extreme as the NRA, that is not the case. 60% wish to have stricter gun laws, ban assault rifles and have universal background checks. Now background checks wont stop another "Adam Lanza" from stealing a gun, but at least the only weapon he has at his disposal is a hunting rifle, where most likely he would be stopped by someone else with a rifle or the police. Speaking of the police, it is worth noting that the 2nd amendment is obsolete at best. The amendment talks about a militia, but this "militia" is the National guard, that act as a defense against any oppression. Also, even if you were to keep the right, if the time ever came of a tyrannical government minister wrecking havoc on America, your handgun would not protect you against the corrupted army, neither would an AR15.
I would like to end my opening argument with my favorite analogy. If you were given a mobile phone, are you more, or less likely, to make phone calls? That is the fallacy of guns.
 (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
I stand firmly against a ban on most guns in the USA and ROTW(I must admit it is unclear to me what rotw stands for)'for the following reasons:
1. Guns and other firearms are necessary for the protection of individuals
I am very disappointed at many of your arguments because you believe that individuals shouldn't have the right to defend themselves apparently, however I firmly stand against your opinions. Guns are of the utmost importance for protection, for example: in studies done, 98% of the time an individual harnessed a handgun potential attacks were avoided. So firearms aren't even needed to be fired to simply protect people.Also, guns will continue to be purchased in the black market by criminals so if we banned firearms we would only be harming the innocent who need to defend themselves.
2. It is not only an infringement of constitutional law, but of natural law to deny individuals the right to protect themselves.
The constituion cannot become outdated just because you dislike what it says. The second amendment is clear enough in itself. In addition, individuals have the right to protect themselves, it is natural law. You can't deny someone the right to uphold his or her own safety just because people misuse protection.
3. As the common saying goes, "guns don't kill people,people kill people" and there are alternatives such as thorough background checks,.
I apologize if I didn't provide many statistics, I am busy right now but I will continue to debate with you. Thank you.
In terms of your argument, a lot of it is unsubstantiated and circular, because the studies you mentioned are not sourced, I am going to completely dismiss them. Also for your clarification, ROTW is Rest of the World, however I apologize for it is a bad acronym and I did not state its meaning originally. Now I shall try address your points as best I can.
1.) I do believe that people should be able to defend themselves, this can be done in a variety of ways. It can be done using your hands, a weapon or the shotgun/hunting rifle that I believe should stay legal. Saying that however, the last thing a person should be doing is trying to defend themselves by lowering their moral views and essence of a human being to nothing more than a dirty animal. This happens when people fight fire with fire. A person should run, give up their possessions or seek assistance rather than fight the perpetrators on their own terms. Otherwise they put their lives at risk or destroy the life of criminals. Although they are criminals, they are still human and don't simply sacrifice the right to life when they enter somebody's house to commit burglary for example. If civilians own handguns. criminals wont think to kill them. These people obtaining guns of the black market are organised and efficient, they are going to be able to eliminate you easily if you pose any threat. The best thing you can do is remain morally intact and not starting a firefight. Like I said, most criminals aren't out their to commit mass killings, most might be out to mug you, steal your TV etc.
2.) Natural law refers to the laws of the ancient Greeks, that we follow Gods rules and the divine kings and that this supersedes man made law. But nowhere in the bible would it condone violence or defending yourself. So it would be morally bankrupt of you to disrespect the original moral laws and kill people with guns, even if they are breaking the law. "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Also, Matthew said "an eye of an eye, a tooth for a tooth" but Jesus said if "somebody was to hit your left cheek, you offer him your right".
And the constitution can indeed become outdated, which is why people not just myself disagree with how dysfunctional it is. There are still laws in the English unwritten constitution that condone the killing of a Scotsman in York with a longbow. Obviously this has been revoked for it is silly and no longer serves any purpose. The problem is, people are clinging onto the tradition for the Constitution of their country, when the people and goodness of society are screaming out for it to be amended in order to evolve with the rest of civilization. By condoning the use of guns to conduct welfare, your basically admitting your morals and ethics are similar to that of Nigeria or Afghanistan.
3.) Guns do kill people. Without the guns people die on a much less scale, if people were to use swords, the amount of deaths would drop drastically. the fact is guns place too much power in somebody's hand. A simple pull of a trigger of an AR15 and 15-20 people's lives are gone forever. You can't trust criminals or people, so by removing the thing they are using, you stop the situation. Also like I said, thorough background checks are not going to do much in terms of stopping an "Adam Lanza" just as your police force can't stop the black market.
I stand firm in my posistiion that guns should NOT be banned in America or the rest of the World. I apologize for not providing a source and you are correct to dismiss that evidence.
First, you said in your most recent argument "Otherwise they put their lives at risk or destroy the life of criminals. Although they are criminals, they are still human and don't simply sacrifice the right to life when they enter somebody's house to commit burglary for example. If civilians own handguns. criminals wont think to kill them. These people obtaining" however dailymail.co.uk proved the exact opposite in an article written in April 2013: "Last month, a would-be thief broke in to Eric Martin's home in St George, Utah - leading the 46-year-old to fear for his life and those of his fianc"e and her daughter.
But thanks to the 9mm pistol he keeps by his bed, he was able to confront the intruder and keep him there until police arrived. As the debate swirls around new gun control measures in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre, many activists are pointing to cases like that of Mr Martin to show that the vast majority of weaponry is intended for entirely legitimate ends." This Is a prime example of the self defense that makes guns perfectly acceptable and therefore the large powers shouldn't not have the right to control and dictate the rights of the people when it comes to defending safety.
The article continued to cite studies on crime in the United States saying: "With Americans split over whether guns more often save lives or jeopardise them, researchers have studied surveys of crime victims done in the 1990s, arguing over what the numbers mean. But since then, crime has plummeted in the U.S. The rate of violent crimes including murder and assault fell by nearly half from 1992 to 2011, while the rate of reported property crime dropped 41 per cent." This directly contradicts your evidence and shows that crime is decreasing in the United States.
Second, you stated that natural law refers to the laws of the Greeks, however I was simply referring to the laws of nature, the laws that give me and you the right to privacy. The laws that allow me to live to breathe, to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! If you would deny people the right to protect themselves then this debate is over and I will forfeit immediately. This is not a small issue, this is the lives of individuals who need to be able to live. You can't give up the lives of others just because a minority doesn't respect the law.
In addition, I apologize if English law has become outdated in your opinion. , If your founding fathers couldn't account for the future, that is your problem not mine, because in America, the constitution was written to exist and uphold the rights of the people and my rights will not be stripped just because you think the law is below a socialist agenda.
Today, more gun owners than ever - 48 per cent according to a March poll by the Pew Research Center - cite self-protection as their primary reason for having a firearm. That has nearly doubled since 1999, and now far surpasses the number of gun owners who say they own a firearm primarily for hunting. We can't deny people the right to protect themselves because, as my third contention states, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
My third contention is also strongly supported by an article written by Clark College in Novemember of 2012. They said:"It has been said "Guns don"t kill people, people kill people", and this is completely true. Behind every shooting is a human being who made the decision to pull the trigger. The vast majority of guns in this country are owned by decent, law-abiding citizens. Should their rights be trampled on because a minuscule percentage of the population chooses to live outside the law? Of course not, you wouldn"t ban cars because some drivers are reckless or kill people in accidents.
Americans are watching their freedoms erode day by day. The last thing we need is more governmental control and less freedom. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
Since I have defended my arguments and answered your arguments from all the previous rounds I will end just as you did, with an analogy. If you are in a burning building alone, and all you have is a cell phone, wouldn't you use it? OF COURSE! In his case, the burning building is a threat and the cell phone is a gun, and I hope you can see how guns are necessary and appropriate for the defense, safety, integrity, and freedom of America and the World. I stand firm in my con position. Thank you.
benl100 forfeited this round.
benl100 forfeited this round.
Dmaverick27 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.