The Instigator
Jeter1011
Pro (for)
The Contender
litliberal
Con (against)

Why Heavy Gun Control Is Bad and Why The Second Ammendment Is Good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Jeter1011 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 124 times Debate No: 113910
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Jeter1011

Pro

First round is for acceptance only and preparation time.
litliberal

Con

OK let me start with what the second amendment is, the right to bear arms to form a well regulated militia; IN A TIME OF WAR! The second amendment was created when we were fighting for our freedom against the British. While I am no fan of violence, it makes sense that citizens would need to carry weapons in the case of an attack. However, we are not at currently at war on our home soil where people would need to carry weapons for self defense, and therefore the second amendment is void. Next, I think you may not be in favor of gun control due to things like terror attacks and/or school shootings. 80% of school shootings are done with legally bought guns. If banning guns would stop 4 in 5 shootings then I am all in. Also heavy gun control would make it harder to get illegally bought guns so this furthers my point. Gun control may make it harder for you to hunt, but that is not the freaking problem of the now dead students. I look forward to your next statement :)
Debate Round No. 1
Jeter1011

Pro

With all due respect, it really doesn't matter whether the guns they bought are bought within legal limit or not. The problem is not the purchasing of guns, the problem isn't the selling of guns, the problem is the mental stability of the clients.

Gun control has been known to actually cause more problems with crime and shootings, if you want an example take a look at Mexico and other countries around the world with a high murder rate. Gun Control has clearly been proven to not work, however, I am in favor of controling the purchasing and flow of guns based on the stabilitity of the buyer.

Allow me to elaborate on the sentance I stated in the last paragraph above. I believe you and I can both agree that School Shootings are a result of mentally unstable people who get their hands on guns. As a result, I believe that guns should only be sold to people above the age of twenty-one (which is the age I believe). Also, if you have a mentally unstable child in your house you should not be permitted to hold a gun unless you have an approved safe and so forth. This works because it doesn't break the second ammendment of the constitution and it keeps those who are pro-gun happy.

"OK let me start with what the second amendment is, the right to bear arms to form a well regulated militia; IN A TIME OF WAR!"

I must say that you are only partially correct with this statement. Albiet that yes, this is the purpose, it is only part of the purpose. The purpose of the second ammendment is to arm the people of the United States to protect themselves from a government tyranny, that is what the founding fathers formed it for. I, myself, with the growing use of "Big Government" which is supported by the left, I fear that a Government Tyranny may arrise within the next two centuries. I am in support for the second ammendment for this reason. It was made to allow us protection from Government Tyranny.

Also, I'd like to thank you for accepting this debate, it's always enjoyable to discuss intellectual conversation.

Back to you!
litliberal

Con

first let me say I am glad to be here and you seem like a very intelligent person compared to my dumb 8th grade colleagues, so thank you for being competent and not just an absent-minded word hurler.

OK, so you first point was that gun control is not really effective and the example you used was Mexico. My problem with using Mexico as an example is that it's gun control was imposed far to late and is not enforced in the right way. Drug cartels make up the government in many places and in others they act simply without the government. This is not the case in the U.S. because the government in our country at least right now is mostly in control, and therefore would simply do better just off of that. I also think we should look at a country like Japan where only the military is allowed to have guns. In Japan the murder rate is .31 in 100,000 per year; which is 8th in the world and very impressive for a highly populated country. The U.S. is 126th in the world with a 4.88 per 100,000 murder rate per year. The U.S. is therefore a more dangerous place than places like: North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and even syria. Japan's liberally formed gun control works very, very well and I don't see why this is not an option here.

Second, you brought up school shootings. Yes, we can agree that school shootings happen when mentally unstable people get their hands on guns. However, I do not agree with your chosen method of dealing with this problem. First I think we must realize that mentally unstable people will simply not shout out that they are hurting mentally before they do something like this, which would make it hard to not sell them guns. Then we must look at the gun show loop-hole where you are hardly ever required to even show id. We will never come up with a system that can stop all mentally unstable an disabled people from purchasing guns. Therefore I feel an outright ban is truly in order if not some very strict reform.

This brings me to your point about how the second amendment is so that we can overthrow the government if necessary. I feel that this is totally not why the founding fathers created the second amendment either. When they created this they were being ruled from across a massive sea by one cruel man and they had no power to take control diplomatically. We are in a very different situation. First, the fact that we have a large government is good in this way because it means that power is balanced so that one person can only have a limited amount of power. Second, we are part of a democracy and not a monarchy. This means that a citizen does in fact have control of the government and has the rights necessary to influence what the government does. This takes away the need for a violent uprising entirely anyway. your so called " government tyranny" is impossible with a fair democracy.

Thanks, tag...your it.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by american_citzen 2 days ago
american_citzen
litliberal your opening statement is incorrect. The second amendment is the right to a well-armed militia and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. It never, ever, ever, ever, ever said anything about only in the time of war. You and the other liberals and misinformed people need to read the great document which is your rights. You come on this debate and misinform the world about the right to bear arms. This is a disgrace to this website and our country. Please come back and debate when you have your correct evidence. Even then the second amendment should never be abolished. With arms, we have not protection against murders, robbers, and rapists who will receive their weapons. They will find a way to get their weapons. Whether it is smuggling or building one. Also if your bring down the second amendment then it is followed by all the other amendments. Leading to the complete destruction of the United States. Finally we started the revolutionary war because they tried to take our weapons. Sure taxation without representation fueled the flame but taking away our guns started the fire.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.