The Instigator
jackthesnack
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
2PartyFarce
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

should gun laws get stricter?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 488 times Debate No: 66794
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

jackthesnack

Pro

Should gun laws in the USA get stricter because of the aftermath of mass shootings such as the newton shooting and Columbine shooting? I think not. To have a true democracy the people in the nation of state need to have the ability to overthrow their rulers in the event they are undesirable or infringing on their rights. But if people do not have that ability than we cant do anything if politician infringe on our rights. Like the branches of government have checks and balances so do we and that is our only one.
2PartyFarce

Con

The second 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. Therefore, this statement is a constitutionally protected right of the American people.

However, often times, only a portion of this statement is used which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Why ignore the rest of the second amendment as stated in the constitution such as, "well regulated militia" or "security of a free state"? I discern well-regulated to infer that the militia will be regulated by the US government, such as our National Guard. My understanding of the security of the free state is to defend the American people and our democratically elected officials from tyrannical individuals and unregulated militias.

Actions that some individuals or militias may deem undesirable or infringing on your rights, the next individual or militia may not view in the same manner. Therefore, any tyranny would likely be originating from the group instigating violence against the US Government, including the US Military.

Ex-felons are not given their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Minors and individuals under age 21 are not allowed to purchase handguns against their rights. The mentally ill, who's to say who is mentally ill or not, denied their right to pack heat as well.

The checks and balances in our system of government are done at the ballot box. Your only option is not to arm up. We are still the only country to have every used nuclear weaponry against another country. An assault rifle or even a shoulder fired rocket, would be totally and completely ineffective against our US Military weapons systems.
Debate Round No. 1
jackthesnack

Pro

You cannot justly blame guns for the deaths of people rather blame peoples own stupidity. And for mass shootings almost exclusively people with mental disorders or physiological almints like anxiety commit the heinous acts. Also restricting guns does not lessen violence but rather can deter it. Look at Chicago it has among the strictest gun laws in the country but that has gotten them nowhere. Also gun violence is going down so why start making stricter laws if everything is getting better along with the fact gun owner ship has gone up 1000% 1988.

If you havent noticed the ballot box is broken nothing is getting done. And politicians have complete power the people need to have there own check and balance so if there were for instance a coup or first amendment rights were striped everyone would be in agreement.
2PartyFarce

Con

Caroline Starks was two year-old, shot to death by her five year-old brother playing with his new birthday present, a 22 caliber cricket rifle.

A 9 year-old, in Arizona, recently shot and killed her instructor at a gun range, while practicing with a UZI.

According to this article, www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association , individuals with, "firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry."

You stated gun ownership, has risen 1000% since 1988, therefore, I would conclude that gun ownership and purchasing has become much easier these days (contrary to what many would believe). I do not believe something as deadly as a gun should be an "easy" purchase.

It is my belief that carrying a gun has become the primary concern, while practice, knowledge, safety, control, and gaining an understanding about your weapon is no longer an important part of owning a gun, there are far too many people who think everyone should own a gun. Similar to my mom making me learn how to drive on a standard transmission, my eighth grade teacher took us to the range to learn how to shoot black powder rifles in order to gain a greater understanding of early guns and gun safety.

Nowadays, gun owners slap a .22 rifle in the hands of a five year-old and tell them to go play with their little sister, or send their 9 year-old to the range to shoot an Uzi, or take their mentally handicap son to the range to shoot an AR and then don't later lock up the assault rifle, as in the case of New Town.

I do not own a gun, because God gave me two large enough guns attached to my shoulders and a half-way decent brain to get out of most sticky situations. I would not feel anymore safe carrying a piece, than I do without one, in fact I would be much more likely to pull it on the next dumba*s that sets off my hair trigger temper.
Debate Round No. 2
jackthesnack

Pro

The deaths of Caroline Starks and the death of the shooting instruct were indeed tragic deaths but avoidable. Their deaths are from ignorant parents and not proper safety persuasions. For instance Carolines death could have been avoided if schools taught gun safety in health class instead of herpes. That gun owner should have had the gun out of reach of the kid and with a gun lock.
That kind of accident only happens with people uneducated on gun safety. Any reasonable person wouldn't have given their five year old son a gun. Also the case of the UZI was negligence from the instructor he should have known that the 9 year old couldn't handle a UZI. Mentally handicapped people should not be aloud to use guns at all I agree with you on that. Also I agree that there should be back round checks but not limitations what i mean by that is if you have children then you are forced to purchase a trigger lock and safe. And if the owner chooses not to use it that's their fault. But if you have a child with a mental disorder I would not be oppose to banning guns from that family all together. I just think the stupidity of the few should ruin it for the whole.
2PartyFarce

Con

That's the problem, the irresponsible, stupidity of a few is ruining it for all.

Driving on private property is allowed at any age, the same goes for shooting, as long as it remains on private property.

I would argue that gun owners should receive licenses, similar to driving in order to have a gun in public.

At an age of maturity, hunter safety courses should be offered and a permit will be distributed to those that pass the required test in order to shoot with a licensed adult in public.

At age 18, classes will be offered on long-arms, a public license will be given to those that pass the required test.

At 21, a public handgun license for those that pass a test will be offered.

Additional classes can be taken for a conceal carry licenses that transfers from state to state.

Potentially, a small annual insurance should be paid for by gun owners, in order to have a proof of insurance.

Currently, sadly, often times the parents of the dead child are paying for the funeral, after the death of their own child. Even if was their own child that committed the accidental shooting, that is still pretty unfortunate. A small insurance paid to own gun would cover funeral costs or hospital bills that amount quickly for those who survive accidental shootings.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 2PartyFarce 2 years ago
2PartyFarce
Maybe "trained" to believe whatever the NRA tells them to believe.
Posted by 2PartyFarce 2 years ago
2PartyFarce
Then this Country needs to start "training" the last couple generations of dumba** gun owners running around thinking they have the right to carry any size gun with absolutely zero training. Gun owners in the US are neither "regulated" or "trained".
Posted by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
You don't really think the original state representatives set the stage for Washington DC to have the power to regulate Firearms in the states? Really? Do you? When the said "Regulated" they meant "Trained".
Posted by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
You don't really think the original state representatives set the stage for Washington DC to have the power to regulate Firearms in the states? Really? Do you? When the said "Regulated" they meant "Trained".
Posted by 2PartyFarce 2 years ago
2PartyFarce
PatulousDescry, that's nothing but pure conjecture, supported by no factual argument, countless lawyers and judges would disagree with your opinion on the subject matter.
Posted by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
If you know your history you would know that "Regulated" as used by our founding fathers means well disciplined just like when they would call a professional army "Regular Army". Not only do we have a right to possess weapons we also have a right to assemble organize become proficient militarily in their use.
Posted by 2PartyFarce 2 years ago
2PartyFarce
Thank you for the discussion, jackthesnack.
No votes have been placed for this debate.