Debate Rounds (5)
Now please tell me why automatic rifles should be ban while pistols are still out there. If this is not your argument, please tell me in the next round. If it is, give me some examples of why it should be banned over pistols.
Basically all laws that the US Government pass are impossible to enforce completely. There will always be resistance to any law especially one that takes away their privilege (not right) to own guns. So your argument about the dichotomy of the law-abiding and the non-law-abiding applies to every privilege circumscription law, even those that have been passed already.
I believe that banning all guns will lower the amount of gun violence. If there aren't any laws to ban guns, there will be people, some perhaps with mental disorders, that will be a threat to society because of their legal possession of firearms.
Therefore, I believe that by restricting guns available to the civilian to zero, we can reduce gun violence.
You think that banning guns will stop this?
All you are doing is taking away guns from the law abiding citizens.
Let's say all guns in America disappear. They will only slowly come back and only to the criminals who sneak them into the country.
There is also the chance of the government getting to controlling.
You can not say it will never happen because that is an assumption. America is the youngest country meaning it is the last country that can say we will never be taken over the government. Personally I don't think it will happen, but it is always a possibility.
There would be more harm done if all these guns were taken away.
Also, the fact that these illegal immigrants are sneaking them in isn't the topic of our debate. They are non-law-abiding citizens seeing as they are illegal trespassers of United States soil. Seizing guns from illegal immigrants is an entirely different issue.
"You think that banning guns will stop this?"
Banning guns in the United States definitely won't stop the illegal immigrant's smuggling of guns, but as I said, that's an entirely different problem that gun banning alone can't solve. That also isn't the problem I'm aiming to solve by banning guns.
"All you are doing is taking away guns from the law abiding citizens."
Yeah, but you forget that by taking away these guns, it can prevent civilian crimes and deaths from happening all the time. Things like domestic murders, suicides, and to an extent, school shootings like the one in Newtown, Connecticut.
"Let's say all guns in America disappear. They will only slowly come back and only to the criminals who sneak them into the country."
Assuming that gun smuggling into the United States is a serious problem in the status quo or post-plan, there is no evidence that these criminals that sneak into the US with guns will sell them rampantly to Average Joe civilians. However, what we are doing right now without gun bans is. In the United States, 45 states doesn't need rifle buyers to have a permit, and 38 states doesn't need handgun buyers to have a permit.* We're basically handing them out to those who are interested in buying but doesn't have the necessary psychological or physical requirements. This is what caused shootings like Columbine, VirginiaTech, and Sandy Hook.
"There is also the chance of the government getting to controlling."
Extrapolate on that in the next round, please.
"You can not say it will never happen because that is an assumption. America is the youngest country meaning it is the last country that can say we will never be taken over the government. Personally I don't think it will happen, but it is always a possibility."
First of all, America isn't the youngest country. The youngest country by definition is the Republic of South Sudan. Second, you don't seem to be very confidant in your argument. Third, however, the United Kingdom banned the private ownership of firearms and they have one of the lowest gun crime rate in the world.** However, United Kingdom is obviously very democratic and has no possible future in government controlling the nation. In fact, gun violence in the US is 40 times higher (percentage by population) than the UK.
"There would be more harm done if all these guns were taken away."
I assume you will thoroughly prove that you in the next round.
So to recapitulate, gun banning and illegal immigrants are two different sides of two VERY different coins, gun banning solves for domestic murders, suicides, etc. Gun banning also will keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally-ill and will lead to lower crime rate, as evidenced by the UK.
Now I'm on a kindle fire so it's almost impossible to show my citations. But there is millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Please look it up if you wish.
Now please explain to me how you can get these criminals to hand in their guns. I have yet to hear one good idea besides completely turning into a dictatorship and breaking into their house.
Now please give me some ideas of what an unarmed man can do to protect his family if a criminal with an illegal purchased gun broke into his house.
You fail to debate we Americans deserve this "right". We don't, in fact. This is a privilege. By saying that we take guns away from people turns us into a dictatorship is a huge leap. Once again, I provided a cite that shows the UK's success in its gun bans, which you failed to refute. The United Kingdom is SURELY not a dictatorship! Dictatorship is caused by something way more than just taking guns away from people so I fail to see how your argument materializes.
I agree there are illegal immigrants in the country. However, I don't believe your number of 10 million. Also, I don't know if this is 10 million every year? Or 10 million total? A citation would provide clarity on that I hope. I believe it's not my burden to prove your statistics.
First, I would like to say that we're not only trying to get criminals to hand in their guns. We want all the citizens to do so. Second, I believe I never said to break into peoples' houses to take their guns for the Fourth Amendment protects them against unreasonable seizures and searches. Third, please show a clear causal link between gun ownership and dictatorship.
Even though the unarmed man can't do much to protect his family, that is not what my case is wanting to solve. My case wants to solve public shootings, where everybody is practically unarmed. By restricting guns and making it harder to access them, it makes it harder for these shootings to happen!
In Round 3, I showed that an overwhelming majority of the states allow anyone to purchase handguns and rifles without needing a license to purchase one. This allows anyone to have easy accessibility to have a gun, even though they might not be physically qualified or psychologically qualified. This is what caused the insane shootings at Newtown and Virginia Tech.
Also in round 3, I provided hard evidence that one, gun banning won't lead to dictatorships like in United Kingdom, and two, gun banning lowers violence, also evidenced by my gunpolicy.org link.
Finally, I asked you to explain why more harm would be done in Round 4, which really haven't done so you agree that more good will come from gun banning.
1. Gun banning is dangerous because anyone, even medically insane people, can easily obtain it. This led to horrible incidents.
2. Gun banning doesn't lead to dictatorship and will lead to a safer environment, as shown in the United Kingdom.
3. Vote Pro.
Being allowed to protect yourself against the government, which is what the second amendment is saying, is not a privilege from the government" sounds kind of stupid if you ask me.
2. First of all it is well over ten million, but that isn"t even the point. It just shows how it is easy to sneak into America, never mind bringing in weapons.
No, weapon smuggling may not be a problem right now, but it would be if all guns were banned. As you can see drugs are banned, and so much of it has been snuck into the US. The same would go for guns if you couldn"t get them in the US anymore.
3. So what"s your point? You can"t take guns away as easily as you think. It would only be easy by taking them away from law abiding citizens, because they follow the law. Criminals don"t"
Tell me how you would take the guns away from a criminal.
1.You just said gun banning is dangerous. I"m confused with your point.
2.Do you know the history of the US? We don"t want to start following into England"s ideas of ruling. That"s why our country was created" that"s why the second amendment is there, so we don"t become like them.
3.Vote whoever the hell you want
1. Your logic is fallacious. Just because it's always the first thing a dictator does, doesn't mean that every time it happens, a dictatorship is imminent. You still neglected my United Kingdom example. My evidence clearly shows that gun banning and dictatorship has no correlation whatsoever. Once again, the United Kingdom's murder rate with guns is 40 times less than the United States'. That's very substantial.
First, I'm not saying that the freedom of speech, press, petition, religion, and assembly are privileges. Those are rights. But have you read the explicit words of Amendment 2? Here it is and I quote:
"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 says a well regulated militia. Unless you're in the militia, you're not authorized to have one, and that's the supreme law.
2. Your 10 million figure matters. Is it 10 million illegal immigrants over the course of US History? 10 million illegal immigrants since the last 10 years? Because if it is the former, it's not very impressive. 10 million throughout a course of over 200+ years wouldn't prove your point at all. I urge that the voters would disregard his uncited argument.
I addressed your gun smuggling issue in Round 3. You didn't provide any evidence that says that gun banning will lead to the rampant selling of guns to Average Joe Americans. I urge that the voters disregard this argument as well.
3. My point is that gun banning will lead to less public shootings, which you didn't refute as well. By restricting guns, Average Joe Ameicans don't have the power to commit spontaneous murders in public area.
1. An overwhelming majority of the Fifty States allow anyone to purchase a firearm. That, as I have proven, is incredibly dangerous because medically insane people could obtain them without any difficulty. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
2. Gun banning WILL make the country safer, as shown in United Kingdom and Germany. This is because no one can obtain them, and thus making public shootings much scarcer, or even disappear. (http://www.gunpolicy.org...)
WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE PRO
1. I have successfully shown and provided links that gun banning isn't destructive to the nation's security.
2. I have successfully responded to every issue my opponent presented me.
I urge the voters to only assess the arguments and rebuttals presented within this debate. I thank my opponent for creating this debate. Thank you for reading the entire debate and using your impartial judgment to cast your ballot.
PS: In Round 4, in my recap, I meant "Not banning guns...". Sorry for the confusion, if it caused any.
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.