Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Right to Bear Arms? Time to go?

TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 10:03:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just yesterday there was a shooting in Florida, where two men got into an altercation over the use of a cell phone during the previews. This resulted in one man shooting the other.

Let's face it, Americans love shooting each other, and our current legislation does little to prevent that beyond putting more people in our ever crowding prisons.

I argue that the right to self defense, should be the second amendment, rather than the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms was created in the context of their being in existence, a well regulated militia. Today that is not the case and the right to bear arms is not interpreted (wrongly so) as being applicable to self defense.

The fact is, not everyone who purchases a gun wants to use it to preserve life, and the government should institute additional restrictions for those who want to purchase guns, so as to mitigate the dangers from people such as the shooter at that Florida theater.

I could go far more in depth, but for the purpose of starting the conversation, I wanted to be brief.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 12:12:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 10:03:26 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
Just yesterday there was a shooting in Florida, where two men got into an altercation over the use of a cell phone during the previews. This resulted in one man shooting the other.

Let's face it, Americans love shooting each other, and our current legislation does little to prevent that beyond putting more people in our ever crowding prisons.

So more laws would help ease the situation? If that's all the current laws do, why will adding more restrictive laws not contribute to this overcrowding of prisons?

I argue that the right to self defense, should be the second amendment, rather than the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms was created in the context of their being in existence, a well regulated militia.

If you read the constitution in it's words (instead of the common fallacy that all it allows is a militia), the militia is just an extension of the right to bear arms; it is the right to band together and collectively bare arms, but the individual right is mentioned first and separately, therefore the militia is just an extension.

Today that is not the case and the right to bear arms is not interpreted (wrongly so) as being applicable to self defense.

Can you re explain this? If you are saying what you think you are, I still don't understand. You have a right to defend your life, whether with your fists, a knife, or a gun, nothing in the constitution prohibits that, nor does any credible politician I can think of try to discredit that.

The fact is, not everyone who purchases a gun wants to use it to preserve life,

Okay? If the vast majority of people are responsible with guns, (as they are) and do intend to use them for non-aggressive purposes, we should not punish them because of an irresponsible minority.

and the government should institute additional restrictions for those who want to purchase guns, so as to mitigate the dangers from people such as the shooter at that Florida theater.

I would like to draw parallels to the boston bombing and this situation with these satirical articles.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com...

http://www.dailypaul.com...

I could go far more in depth, but for the purpose of starting the conversation, I wanted to be brief.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 12:31:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 12:12:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So more laws would help ease the situation? If that's all the current laws do, why will adding more restrictive laws not contribute to this overcrowding of prisons?

I'm not talking about more punitive laws, I am talking about laws which require the registration and tracking of arms, with regular check ups, along with background checks and maybe even a psych evaluation.

If you read the constitution in it's words (instead of the common fallacy that all it allows is a militia), the militia is just an extension of the right to bear arms; it is the right to band together and collectively bare arms, but the individual right is mentioned first and separately, therefore the militia is just an extension.

Let's take a look at the text.

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.

What's necessary to the security of a free state? A militia. Therefore, by extension.. the rights of the people to bear arms is not to be infringed.

What's fallacious about properly understanding the employment of the English language?

This amendment is irrelevant because we no longer believe that a regulated militia is necessary for a secure and free state. Therefore, the second amendment should be changed to the right of self defense, and should be accompanied by laws that enforce stricter gun controls.

Can you re explain this? If you are saying what you think you are, I still don't understand. You have a right to defend your life, whether with your fists, a knife, or a gun, nothing in the constitution prohibits that, nor does any credible politician I can think of try to discredit that.

I'm not saying it prohibits it. I am saying the Constitution goes too far so as to provide people the right to bear arms, the right of self defense and the right to bear arms are different. Very few countries have the right to bear arms, and their homicide rates are through the roof, namely the USA and Mexico. Even Canada does not have the right to bear arms in their Constitution.

Okay? If the vast majority of people are responsible with guns, (as they are) and do intend to use them for non-aggressive purposes, we should not punish them because of an irresponsible minority.

We're not punishing anyone. If people have completely innocent reasons for having a gun, then they can have one. They just will comply with the process and be totally fine.

How is this a punishment? Shouldn't honest and responsible gun owners promote and honest and responsible policy towards these deadly weapons?

Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, and it is one that should warrant more oversight and responsibility.

and the government should institute additional restrictions for those who want to purchase guns, so as to mitigate the dangers from people such as the shooter at that Florida theater.

I would like to draw parallels to the boston bombing and this situation with these satirical articles.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com...

http://www.dailypaul.com...

When pressure cookers are used in the murder of tens of thousands every year... then that will be a relevant satire. Sadly, you won't find many of the victims families laughing at the USA's irresponsible policies.

Gun ownership is not a right, self defense is.. and gun ownership should only be allowed for people who we know will use it for this purpose. (notable exceptions are hunting and confirmed recreational uses)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 1:30:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 12:31:16 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:


Let's take a look at the text.

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.

What's necessary to the security of a free state? A militia. Therefore, by extension.. the rights of the people to bear arms is not to be infringed.

However, if the people cannot keep and bear arms, then we, the people, cannot establish a well regulated militia.
My work here is, finally, done.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 2:20:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 1:30:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/14/2014 12:31:16 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:


Let's take a look at the text.

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.

What's necessary to the security of a free state? A militia. Therefore, by extension.. the rights of the people to bear arms is not to be infringed.

However, if the people cannot keep and bear arms, then we, the people, cannot establish a well regulated militia.

We don't have a well regulated militia now. Hardly anyone actually thinks that a militia would actually be relevant to actually fulfilling that purpose anyways. What well regulated militia could stand up the United States Military, should the U.S. become a totalitarian state and seek to subjugate the people?

The idea of a militia, is an idea only relevant to the days of our founding. As it is irrelevant, so is the supposed "right" for citizens to bear arms, and the right should instead be stated as a right to self defense, and coupled with proper regulations to protect the honest and responsible gun owners of our nation.

And NOT to protect people who unlawfully and violently use their weapons, such as the school shooting which took place this morning. Or the senile man who brings a .308 to a theater, and shoots a father texting his daughter, because he thought... " in fear of being attacked." Or that he had been hit with some unknown object... which was likely popcorn.

The misuse of firearms, to the detriment of society is a weekly, and too often DAILY occurrence, where innocent lives are ended. It's time to stop pretending these shooters had a right to carry a firearm.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:20:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem with banning guns is that the US has too many super cities (unlike most European nations)... The Black Market is vast and wide. Criminals would still get guns while everyone else can't.

The next problem is location, anyone smoking pot right now knows the US-Mexico border is not well defended and anything illegal to produce here will just move in from there. That, and Cuba.

The problem isn't legal guns. The real culprit, again related to number of super cities, is gang violence. Gangs account for as much as 17% of all gun murders. Gangs are also responsible for many to most guns that end up being used in murders. banning guns doesn't do anything to Gangs, who purchase trafficked gun anyways.

The game changes with 3-D Printing.

To solve the gun homicide problem, you have to make guns impossible to traffic into the US, and curve Gang violence. And than fix the 3-D Printer issue.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:50:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 4:20:02 PM, donald.keller wrote:
The problem with banning guns is that the US has too many super cities (unlike most European nations)... The Black Market is vast and wide. Criminals would still get guns while everyone else can't.

I am only promoting stricter gun control regulations, not an outright ban. I have come to the conclusion, like yourself, that a ban may work in countries in Europe.. but for the U.S. the prohibition would create an even larger black market.


The next problem is location, anyone smoking pot right now knows the US-Mexico border is not well defended and anything illegal to produce here will just move in from there. That, and Cuba.

End the prohibition against drugs, starve out the cartels and focus on the trafficking of illegal arms. The real killers in this war on drugs, guns..


The problem isn't legal guns. The real culprit, again related to number of super cities, is gang violence. Gangs account for as much as 17% of all gun murders. Gangs are also responsible for many to most guns that end up being used in murders. banning guns doesn't do anything to Gangs, who purchase trafficked gun anyways.

Legal weapons are often the problem, the instance I cited in my OP was with a murder weapon being a legal firearm. My argument isn't in response to gang violence, that ultimately stems from the illegal gun trade that has it's roots in the war on drugs. Focus on locating smuggled firearms, not smuggled drugs.


The game changes with 3-D Printing.

Penalize the making of firearms via 3-D printing, heavily. The government must be able to keep track of the guns that are owned, and deter people from going to the black market or creating the weapons themselves by strict policies.

If it became a big enough issue, require the same kind of registration policies for owners of 3-D printers, as you do for firearm owners.


To solve the gun homicide problem, you have to make guns impossible to traffic into the US, and curve Gang violence. And than fix the 3-D Printer issue.

There is no way to eliminate it, we can only mitigate it. That comes from changing the 2nd amendment to something that is relevant, and then enforcing stricter policies around the ownership of firearms. End the drug prohibition, and utilize that enforcement energy on the gun trafficking black market.

Gang violence would be mitigated more via educational reform in the poorer neighborhoods where these gangs are common. Stop letting the youth become victims to the corrupt culture in those sectors.

We need common sense reforms and policies that are relevant to today's world. Not the 18th Century.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 5:13:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 4:50:00 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:20:02 PM, donald.keller wrote:
The problem with banning guns is that the US has too many super cities (unlike most European nations)... The Black Market is vast and wide. Criminals would still get guns while everyone else can't.

I am only promoting stricter gun control regulations, not an outright ban. I have come to the conclusion, like yourself, that a ban may work in countries in Europe.. but for the U.S. the prohibition would create an even larger black market.

Gun Regulation is another vast topic, so we should leave this topic in agreement that banning guns won't work.


The next problem is location, anyone smoking pot right now knows the US-Mexico border is not well defended and anything illegal to produce here will just move in from there. That, and Cuba.

End the prohibition against drugs, starve out the cartels and focus on the trafficking of illegal arms. The real killers in this war on drugs, guns..

It's questionable if ending the prohibition would work. The illegal cartels would still operate, since buying from legal companies tend to cost twice as much. The cartels are powerful, if their product does start to fail, they would move to harder stuff. They don't love making crack or pot, they love making money.



The problem isn't legal guns. The real culprit, again related to number of super cities, is gang violence. Gangs account for as much as 17% of all gun murders. Gangs are also responsible for many to most guns that end up being used in murders. banning guns doesn't do anything to Gangs, who purchase trafficked gun anyways.

Legal weapons are often the problem, the instance I cited in my OP was with a murder weapon being a legal firearm. My argument isn't in response to gang violence, that ultimately stems from the illegal gun trade that has it's roots in the war on drugs. Focus on locating smuggled firearms, not smuggled drugs.

Most gun violence was done with illegally obtained guns. The high estimates are at 95%. I don't know if it's that high though. Tracing illegal guns back to Cartels is interesting though. The people the gangs get guns from. It'll be hard to catch illegal guns getting smuggled with Plastic 3-D Printing on the field.


The game changes with 3-D Printing.

Penalize the making of firearms via 3-D printing, heavily. The government must be able to keep track of the guns that are owned, and deter people from going to the black market or creating the weapons themselves by strict policies.

If it became a big enough issue, require the same kind of registration policies for owners of 3-D printers, as you do for firearm owners.

It'll be hard. As the US has proven, when you try to regulate something, it just hides further in the underworld. The Black Market and vast underworld in the US makes regulations almost completely useless. Perhaps keep track of all downloads, since all downloads require online access. Although most people would get their blueprints from disks then. Then many people would bring up Privacy Issues.


To solve the gun homicide problem, you have to make guns impossible to traffic into the US, and curve Gang violence. And than fix the 3-D Printer issue.

There is no way to eliminate it, we can only mitigate it. That comes from changing the 2nd amendment to something that is relevant, and then enforcing stricter policies around the ownership of firearms. End the drug prohibition, and utilize that enforcement energy on the gun trafficking black market.

Solving the problem isn't about stopping it, but curving it to a reasonably acceptable level. You wouldn't have to change it, just encourage a new interpretation. Although the Second Amendment isn't actually related to gun violence. Most guns used in murders aren't legal, and so aren't protected by the amendment. The Second Amendment isn't responsible for the number of trafficked guns, Mexico and cartels are.


Gang violence would be mitigated more via educational reform in the poorer neighborhoods where these gangs are common. Stop letting the youth become victims to the corrupt culture in those sectors.

Yes, there are many ways to solve it. I believe it can be solved through Education more than police action. When referring to Gangs, I'm typically more liberal to Social Programs than I normally am.

We need common sense reforms and policies that are relevant to today's world. Not the 18th Century.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 7:25:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 5:13:58 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gun Regulation is another vast topic, so we should leave this topic in agreement that banning guns won't work.

Specifically to the situation in America, yes.

The next problem is location, anyone smoking pot right now knows the US-Mexico border is not well defended and anything illegal to produce here will just move in from there. That, and Cuba.

It's questionable if ending the prohibition would work. The illegal cartels would still operate, since buying from legal companies tend to cost twice as much. The cartels are powerful, if their product does start to fail, they would move to harder stuff. They don't love making crack or pot, they love making money.

Ending the prohibition of alcohol was extremely effective. And yes the cartels will attempt to adapt, but if we cut off the primary source of their demand.. I don't see how one could say that this would not be a near fatal blow to their empires.

Whatever ventures they then take up, be it the trafficking of illegal arms, would be heavily opposed and mitigated by our border patrol on account of the war on drugs being over.

Most gun violence was done with illegally obtained guns. The high estimates are at 95%. I don't know if it's that high though. Tracing illegal guns back to Cartels is interesting though. The people the gangs get guns from. It'll be hard to catch illegal guns getting smuggled with Plastic 3-D Printing on the field.

I'm curious where you get the number of 95%, as it is not so easy to determine statistics of that sort. In most homicides they don't actually know if the gun is obtained through illegal means, or legal, unless of course it is committed by an illegal type of firearm. So noting speculative data as ammunition to your position is well... speculative.

I already mentioned a separate solution for gang violence which would have to be implemented in tandem with these other policies. Also, as you already noted, gang violence is only 17% of the annual murder rate, I want to worry about the other 83%.



It'll be hard. As the US has proven, when you try to regulate something, it just hides further in the underworld. The Black Market and vast underworld in the US makes regulations almost completely useless. Perhaps keep track of all downloads, since all downloads require online access. Although most people would get their blueprints from disks then. Then many people would bring up Privacy Issues.

Guns, even more so to drugs and alcohol though are often severe threats to the general safety of American citizens. If we end the useless drug prohibitions, it will alleviate law enforcement agencies to be more successful in their efforts to subvert gun trafficking by these illegal entities.

I'm just calling for a shift in the way we regard guns, that we regard them as a privilege. As one of the better means we have for defending ourselves from criminal activity, which of course there are other alternatives too. This means we stop treating it as if it is a right for people to own one, and develop a more responsible policy to account for these dangerous weapons.

Solving the problem isn't about stopping it, but curving it to a reasonably acceptable level. You wouldn't have to change it, just encourage a new interpretation. Although the Second Amendment isn't actually related to gun violence. Most guns used in murders aren't legal, and so aren't protected by the amendment. The Second Amendment isn't responsible for the number of trafficked guns, Mexico and cartels are.

People are interpreting the 2nd amendment differently, despite the clear language which suggests a contrary interpretation. Make the law explicitly about the right to self defense, like every other nation.

Neither of us cannot speak about whether or not most guns are not legally obtained or not. We do rank #1 in all the world in privately owned firearms.. we really don't need Mexico to smuggle these weapons in many of the cases, when a kid can get his daddy's shotgun from the closet.. and then go blow a hole in a girl at school.

The fact is that the most prevalent method for people to obtain guns, are through those given to them by their friends and family, which are often obtained legally (initially of course). A study that surveyed the source of firearms among formerly convicted felons reported that 35% of the time they obtained it via friends and family, with only 9% being the black market. Or 15% via drug dealers, which would of course be reduced should the drug prohibition end.

Yes, there are many ways to solve it. I believe it can be solved through Education more than police action. When referring to Gangs, I'm typically more liberal to Social Programs than I normally am.

Gangs are only 17% of the problem as you noted, and no where in my posts prior to my discussion with you did I bring up the issue of gangs. I'm talking about working toward a way that we can track and regulate the firearms in this country, so that we don't have an almost 1 : 1 ratio of firearms to people. The availability of firearms to violent people, will in fact increase the rate of homicides, this is a statistical fact if you evaluate the data. The problem is not like Japan or the UK, where we would just ban them. Instead, it is about promoting responsible and ethical reforms that respects the power of these deadly weapons and therefore comes up with policies to properly regulate the gun market.

The "right" to bear arms, must go, and must be replaced by the reasonable contention that people rather have a right to self-defense.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 1:05:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Taking guns away from the government is an issue of magnitude several millions times more important, statistically speaking.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 1:42:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's questionable if ending the prohibition would work. The illegal cartels would still operate, since buying from legal companies tend to cost twice as much. The cartels are powerful, if their product does start to fail, they would move to harder stuff. They don't love making crack or pot, they love making money.

Ending the prohibition of alcohol was extremely effective. And yes the cartels will attempt to adapt, but if we cut off the primary source of their demand.. I don't see how one could say that this would not be a near fatal blow to their empires.

Actually, Prohibition curved Alcoholism by nearly half. The number of drunks at the time was too high, so Prohibition was started to slow the rate down. Prohibition actually succeeded, the idea that it didn't came from the fact that it was repelled. Ending Prohibition didn't work, Prohibition did. Ending it was just the final stage.

It would for a while. The Cartels would switch to something else. One could debate quite a while over the effects of ending prohibition, but it's agreeable that ending the Cartels will curve violent gun crimes here and in Mexico.

Whatever ventures they then take up, be it the trafficking of illegal arms, would be heavily opposed and mitigated by our border patrol on account of the war on drugs being over.

One might argue that it'd be as effective as the war on drugs. The only will way to end the Cartels and Guns would be to solidify the border for once.

I'm curious where you get the number of 95%, as it is not so easy to determine statistics of that sort. In most homicides they don't actually know if the gun is obtained through illegal means, or legal, unless of course it is committed by an illegal type of firearm. So noting speculative data as ammunition to your position is well... speculative.

http://gunvictimsaction.org...

From that source, 60% of guns in crimes are already illegal. The number would than be higher. 95% is the highest estimate I've heard, but like I said, I doubt it's that high.

I already mentioned a separate solution for gang violence which would have to be implemented in tandem with these other policies. Also, as you already noted, gang violence is only 17% of the annual murder rate, I want to worry about the other 83%.

Well that 17%, as I mentioned, is added on by the murders done with the guns they sell. Cartels don't sell their guns straight up. It's gangs that sell the guns for them. Like how it's gangs selling the Cartels drugs to people. Curving gangs will curb a lot of gun murders.

It'll be hard. As the US has proven, when you try to regulate something, it just hides further in the underworld. The Black Market and vast underworld in the US makes regulations almost completely useless. Perhaps keep track of all downloads, since all downloads require online access. Although most people would get their blueprints from disks then. Then many people would bring up Privacy Issues.

Guns, even more so to drugs and alcohol though are often severe threats to the general safety of American citizens. If we end the useless drug prohibitions, it will alleviate law enforcement agencies to be more successful in their efforts to subvert gun trafficking by these illegal entities.

Guns are used to kill nearly 11,000 a year. Alcohol is linked to 75,000 deaths, and drugs to 17,000.

I'm just calling for a shift in the way we regard guns, that we regard them as a privilege. As one of the better means we have for defending ourselves from criminal activity, which of course there are other alternatives too. This means we stop treating it as if it is a right for people to own one, and develop a more responsible policy to account for these dangerous weapons.

Well, guns are used in self-defense 2.5 million times a year. For the most part, Gun Owners are entirely responsible. Most people using guns as a weapon didn't have the right to a gun. The issue isn't how we see guns, it's how many illegal ways one can get a gun regardless of how we see them.

People are interpreting the 2nd amendment differently, despite the clear language which suggests a contrary interpretation. Make the law explicitly about the right to self defense, like every other nation.

The Gun Debate regarding the interpretation is very complicated. I don't believe interpreting it can be consider clearly obvious, or the smartest among us wouldn't be arguing still. The court is rather certain it protects firearm ownership.
http://constitution.findlaw.com...

Neither of us cannot speak about whether or not most guns are not legally obtained or not. We do rank #1 in all the world in privately owned firearms.. we really don't need Mexico to smuggle these weapons in many of the cases, when a kid can get his daddy's shotgun from the closet.. and then go blow a hole in a girl at school.

Culture and Neighbors, mostly. The US is in a very bad neighborhood. The US also has the largest gang membership in the world. The US, as the worlds single most outreaching and fruitful economy, is likely to attract the worlds worst.

Children killing other children with their parent's gun is so rare, that bringing it up is a far stretch.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The fact is that the most prevalent method for people to obtain guns, are through those given to them by their friends and family, which are often obtained legally (initially of course). A study that surveyed the source of firearms among formerly convicted felons reported that 35% of the time they obtained it via friends and family, with only 9% being the black market. Or 15% via drug dealers, which would of course be reduced should the drug prohibition end.

Many times family and friends give felons guns, they are just the middle man for the other guys. Many other times, the family/friend wasn't aware, likely half of them, since 15% of guns used are stolen. We can assume almost all of those are stolen from friends and family. It is true that most guns were obtained in a straw purchase.

Gangs are only 17% of the problem as you noted, and no where in my posts prior to my discussion with you did I bring up the issue of gangs. I'm talking about working toward a way that we can track and regulate the firearms in this country, so that we don't have an almost 1 : 1 ratio of firearms to people. The availability of firearms to violent people, will in fact increase the rate of homicides, this is a statistical fact if you evaluate the data. The problem is not like Japan or the UK, where we would just ban them. Instead, it is about promoting responsible and ethical reforms that respects the power of these deadly weapons and therefore comes up with policies to properly regulate the gun market.

I've been talking about gangs here. That's why I didn't write it as a direct reply. I was bringing up an extra point in the overall Gun Debate. Like I said, Gangs are also responsible for many to most black market trades. Taking out half of all gangs could take out half of all black market transactions made by single people.

The "right" to bear arms, must go, and must be replaced by the reasonable contention that people rather have a right to self-defense.

That's another argument for another day.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 9:05:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 1:05:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Taking guns away from the government is an issue of magnitude several millions times more important, statistically speaking.

Are you speaking in regards to disarming our military? I think so long as we don't go on crusades like the Iraq War, we can do just fine with keeping it intact. Relative to the % of GDP that we spend on it, it isn't a big deal.

Americans citizens have proven far more effective at killing each other, than any other foreign opponent we have faced.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 9:43:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 1:42:58 AM, donald.keller wrote:

Actually, Prohibition curved Alcoholism by nearly half. The number of drunks at the time was too high, so Prohibition was started to slow the rate down. Prohibition actually succeeded, the idea that it didn't came from the fact that it was repelled. Ending Prohibition didn't work, Prohibition did. Ending it was just the final stage.

It would for a while. The Cartels would switch to something else. One could debate quite a while over the effects of ending prohibition, but it's agreeable that ending the Cartels will curve violent gun crimes here and in Mexico.

Whatever ventures they then take up, be it the trafficking of illegal arms, would be heavily opposed and mitigated by our border patrol on account of the war on drugs being over.

One might argue that it'd be as effective as the war on drugs. The only will way to end the Cartels and Guns would be to solidify the border for once.


http://gunvictimsaction.org...

From that source, 60% of guns in crimes are already illegal. The number would than be higher. 95% is the highest estimate I've heard, but like I said, I doubt it's that high.


Well that 17%, as I mentioned, is added on by the murders done with the guns they sell. Cartels don't sell their guns straight up. It's gangs that sell the guns for them. Like how it's gangs selling the Cartels drugs to people. Curving gangs will curb a lot of gun murders.

It'll be hard. As the US has proven, when you try to regulate something, it just hides further in the underworld. The Black Market and vast underworld in the US makes regulations almost completely useless. Perhaps keep track of all downloads, since all downloads require online access. Although most people would get their blueprints from disks then. Then many people would bring up Privacy Issues.

Guns, even more so to drugs and alcohol though are often severe threats to the general safety of American citizens. If we end the useless drug prohibitions, it will alleviate law enforcement agencies to be more successful in their efforts to subvert gun trafficking by these illegal entities.

Guns are used to kill nearly 11,000 a year. Alcohol is linked to 75,000 deaths, and drugs to 17,000.


Well, guns are used in self-defense 2.5 million times a year. For the most part, Gun Owners are entirely responsible. Most people using guns as a weapon didn't have the right to a gun. The issue isn't how we see guns, it's how many illegal ways one can get a gun regardless of how we see them.


The Gun Debate regarding the interpretation is very complicated. I don't believe interpreting it can be consider clearly obvious, or the smartest among us wouldn't be arguing still. The court is rather certain it protects firearm ownership.
http://constitution.findlaw.com...


Culture and Neighbors, mostly. The US is in a very bad neighborhood. The US also has the largest gang membership in the world. The US, as the worlds single most outreaching and fruitful economy, is likely to attract the worlds worst.

Children killing other children with their parent's gun is so rare, that bringing it up is a far stretch.
http://en.wikipedia.org...


Many times family and friends give felons guns, they are just the middle man for the other guys. Many other times, the family/friend wasn't aware, likely half of them, since 15% of guns used are stolen. We can assume almost all of those are stolen from friends and family. It is true that most guns were obtained in a straw purchase.


I've been talking about gangs here. That's why I didn't write it as a direct reply. I was bringing up an extra point in the overall Gun Debate. Like I said, Gangs are also responsible for many to most black market trades. Taking out half of all gangs could take out half of all black market transactions made by single people.


That's another argument for another day.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the 2.5 million instances per year where crime is prevented. That is an absolutely fabricated number. According to the National Survey of Criminal Victimization, the figure is closer to 100,000. With the total number of crimes being committed being over 10 million, that is hardly a dent in regards to deterring crime effectively.

And with regards to the number of people who die from drug overdose, or other related drug deaths. That number would not go up, I project, if we were to legalize and regulate the distribution of drugs. People, would have easier access to aiding them into getting free of the addictions because it would no longer be criminalized, and they would not be able to obtain enough (through legal means of course) to kill themselves. The most commonly used illicit drug is of course, marijuana, which could only be argued to perhaps be linked to some deaths related to collisions on the road.

If usage were our only concern, then perhaps it would be a valid argument, but the fact is that the United States has the largest demand in the world for illicit drugs, and our prohibition has created a vast network of illegal organizations all over neighbor's countries. This has lead to countless more deaths than what the drugs themselves are responsible for.

If this were the primary argument, then banning smoking would be even more relevant as it kills WAY more people each year. The fact of the matter is that firearms and drugs cannot properly be compared, because one is a harm that one chooses for themselves, and the other is forced on an innocent victim. Guns are used to kill tens of thousands of people each year, over 200,000 in the last two decades. This is a symptom of the fact that we have a huge policy issue, that issue is the assurance that all citizens are guaranteed the right to own firearms (there are exclusions, but not enough).

Regarding the Prohibition of alcohol in America, the use of alcohol raised back up 80% before the law was ever repealed, which demonstrated that it was ultimately a short term and ineffective fix. It drastically increased crime in almost every avenue though, raising drug addiction by 44.6%, homicides by 12.6%, assault and battery by 13%. Ending prohibition, and forcing these organized crime elements to compete with cheaper legal options, decimated their organizations. So to argue that the prohibition was a smash success.. is really historical ignorance.

I also disagree with the sophistication of the wording of the 2nd amendment, it's only complicated because people are trying to fit all kinds of things that clearly are not implied. The issue isn't the text, the issue is people's interpretive principles.

You and I agree very much so regarding gang violence, and I think that will ultimately be the take away. Education reform and support for these poorer neighborhoods, along with ending the prohibition on drugs, is what I believe should be done. Mitigating people from my making truly stupid personal choices, is less in the interest of the United States government, than mitigating the harm people inflict on others. And reducing our costs, and increasing our revenue, which would be a natural consequence of the government backed regulation of the drug trade. It's not as if normal people will all of the sudden want to do heroine, I simply don't buy the argument that usage would shoot through the roof. Prohibitions just replace the problems of usage with even bigger social issues.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 4:07:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the 2.5 million instances per year where crime is prevented. That is an absolutely fabricated number. According to the National Survey of Criminal Victimization, the figure is closer to 100,000. With the total number of crimes being committed being over 10 million, that is hardly a dent in regards to deterring crime effectively.

My source is this: Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

That depends. Not every crime is personal, between two people. Guns I own don't stop bank robberies, but they do stop people breaking into me house. When compared to crimes that actually involve self-defense, the ratio is more favorable. You also leave out number of crimes prevented by gun ownership. Criminals tend to avoid people to have a gun in their home or on them.

And with regards to the number of people who die from drug overdose, or other related drug deaths. That number would not go up, I project, if we were to legalize and regulate the distribution of drugs. People, would have easier access to aiding them into getting free of the addictions because it would no longer be criminalized, and they would not be able to obtain enough (through legal means of course) to kill themselves. The most commonly used illicit drug is of course, marijuana, which could only be argued to perhaps be linked to some deaths related to collisions on the road.

I wouldn't test human stupidity. Alcohol is legal, and it causes 75,000 death still.

If usage were our only concern, then perhaps it would be a valid argument, but the fact is that the United States has the largest demand in the world for illicit drugs, and our prohibition has created a vast network of illegal organizations all over neighbor's countries. This has lead to countless more deaths than what the drugs themselves are responsible for.

This is because of the neighborhood. People living near the dealer and his advertising tend to be more into his product. Access to illegal drugs is the problem there.

If this were the primary argument, then banning smoking would be even more relevant as it kills WAY more people each year. The fact of the matter is that firearms and drugs cannot properly be compared, because one is a harm that one chooses for themselves, and the other is forced on an innocent victim. Guns are used to kill tens of thousands of people each year, over 200,000 in the last two decades. This is a symptom of the fact that we have a huge policy issue, that issue is the assurance that all citizens are guaranteed the right to own firearms (there are exclusions, but not enough).

I believe smoking should be banned. You say "A is worse than B, and A is legal, so B should be legal." I see "A and worse than B, so A should be illegal also." Guns are only used in the murder of 12,000 a year. Not "tens of thousands." Unless you include suicides, but that's not gun-related. That's a personal social issue. Listing the number of deaths over the course of decades is fallacious, since it leaves out the extra details, such as the per capita rate, and population size. It also leaves out massive crime sprees like in the early 1990s. It takes our minds away from the current situation, of which murders from a decade ago isn't a factor in. Per Capita, gun crimes have fallen 50% since 2 decades ago. That means the number of deaths over 2 decades would be proportionately highly than the current annual per capita.

Regarding the Prohibition of alcohol in America, the use of alcohol raised back up 80% before the law was ever repealed, which demonstrated that it was ultimately a short term and ineffective fix. It drastically increased crime in almost every avenue though, raising drug addiction by 44.6%, homicides by 12.6%, assault and battery by 13%. Ending prohibition, and forcing these organized crime elements to compete with cheaper legal options, decimated their organizations. So to argue that the prohibition was a smash success.. is really historical ignorance.

Prohibition decreased Alcohol consumption by nearly 30-50%. The point was to curb the number of deaths and arrests caused by Alcohol.
http://www.nytimes.com... - Mark H. Moore, professor of criminal justice at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

I also disagree with the sophistication of the wording of the 2nd amendment, it's only complicated because people are trying to fit all kinds of things that clearly are not implied. The issue isn't the text, the issue is people's interpretive principles.

Time and time again, the Supreme Court has supported the current meaning. The biggest problem is the third comma. With the third comma, it can be interpreted as both:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
and
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Basically, the third comma makes people believe it's a list of two things that can't be infringed.

You and I agree very much so regarding gang violence, and I think that will ultimately be the take away. Education reform and support for these poorer neighborhoods, along with ending the prohibition on drugs, is what I believe should be done. Mitigating people from my making truly stupid personal choices, is less in the interest of the United States government, than mitigating the harm people inflict on others. And reducing our costs, and increasing our revenue, which would be a natural consequence of the government backed regulation of the drug trade. It's not as if normal people will all of the sudden want to do heroine, I simply don't buy the argument that usage would shoot through the roof. Prohibitions just replace the problems of usage with even bigger so

We must wait until Washington state's legalized marijuana laws are a year or so old. Then we will have an example. Until then, all we can do is assume. Although, in April, we can observe Uruguay for a year.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 4:58:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 4:07:58 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the 2.5 million instances per year where crime is prevented. That is an absolutely fabricated number. According to the National Survey of Criminal Victimization, the figure is closer to 100,000. With the total number of crimes being committed being over 10 million, that is hardly a dent in regards to deterring crime effectively.

My source is this: Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

I would read this if I were you, read it before you replied and thought it would be a good read.

http://www.stat.duke.edu...

At any rate, I would trust the National Survey of Criminal Victimization results, which received it's last update in 2012, and is funded by the government. Rather than a self-report done by a clearly biased criminologist, who has questionable techniques. 2.5 million is absurd.

That depends. Not every crime is personal, between two people. Guns I own don't stop bank robberies, but they do stop people breaking into me house. When compared to crimes that actually involve self-defense, the ratio is more favorable. You also leave out number of crimes prevented by gun ownership. Criminals tend to avoid people to have a gun in their home or on them.

Criminals don't have some kind of special sixth sense, where they can sense whether or not a household owns a gun or not. Unless of course they know the person, or the person brandishes their 9mm every chance he gets around the neighborhood. I wouldn't say it's a deterrent, except in the instances where there is a confrontation.

Remeber, I'm not denying that firearms are used to prevent crime, I think they do, but it's not as effective as people like the NRA will have you think.

I wouldn't test human stupidity. Alcohol is legal, and it causes 75,000 death still.

I wouldn't legislate it either. Which is strange to me that people who argue for individual freedom, often argue most strongly against it when it comes to social issues.

Of course 443,000 people die each year from cigarette smoke, which is about 6 times more than alcohol. Where are the smoking bans? Or don't even get me started on junk food, then you're into the millions, with regards to people who die prematurely each year as a result to abusing the food they intake.

You can't legislate stupidity, without ending up in some truly hypocritical situations. How can our government prohibit illicit drugs, while regulating and allowing the use of alcohol, cigarettes and fast food. We can't let the government parent it's citizens, it doesn't work and creates even worse problems. People die prematurely for all kinds of dumb reasons, we can't ban them all, but we can attempt to mitigate people's ability to kill EACH OTHER.

This is because of the neighborhood. People living near the dealer and his advertising tend to be more into his product. Access to illegal drugs is the problem there.

Supply is created BECAUSE of the demand, not the other way around. Cartels thrive in Central and South America, because the United States has created an environment where a black market will thrive. Usage will not go away, all we can do is make it safer, limit the distribution and eliminate the dealers and black markets behind the illegal trade. That would be accomplished via the end of the prohibition, and the regulation and taxation of illicit drugs.

I believe smoking should be banned. You say "A is worse than B, and A is legal, so B should be legal." I see "A and worse than B, so A should be illegal also." Guns are only used in the murder of 12,000 a year. Not "tens of thousands." Unless you include suicides, but that's not gun-related. That's a personal social issue. Listing the number of deaths over the course of decades is fallacious, since it leaves out the extra details, such as the per capita rate, and population size. It also leaves out massive crime sprees like in the early 1990s. It takes our minds away from the current situation, of which murders from a decade ago isn't a factor in. Per Capita, gun crimes have fallen 50% since 2 decades ago. That means the number of deaths over 2 decades would be proportionately highly than the current annual per capita.

Well our per capita rate is higher than any other western country, and only exceeded by the countries of Latin America, which are a symptom of a problem that resides right here in America... namely the drug prohibition. Banning cigarettes will do nothing but strengthen these drug cartels as people will continue to use them, and it will just drive the market underground. Legislating stupidity is stupid. You replace problems that are pertaining to the choices people make that primarily effect themselves, with problems that effect almost everyone.

I didn't say murder, I said "kill," which is true. And many of the suicides and accidental deaths are due to a lack of safety with firearms, particularly concerning parents and children.

The overall death rate is not what should cause us to introduce stronger regulations, it is the nature of the crimes which are contrary to cigarettes and alcohol. These are violent crimes that involve the intentional killing of human beings, citizens of the United States who often did not make a series of choices that caused them to develop a condition, but rather were caught up in a nation where this has become an epidemic.

Prohibition decreased Alcohol consumption by nearly 30-50%. The point was to curb the number of deaths and arrests caused by Alcohol.
http://www.nytimes.com... - Mark H. Moore, professor of criminal justice at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

As I mentioned before, alcohol consumption went up 80% prior to it's repeal, so even if it wasn't repealed those numbers would have continued to increase as the black market became stronger. The numbers dropped because of the supply ceased, but once the supply was replaced via an underground market then the usage began to go back to normal.

When you decrease the arrests and deaths concerning alcohol, but increase the arrests and deaths concerning almost every other form of crime... how can that be considered a success? It was repealed because the policy proved to be a disaster, and that is why it is rightly taboo today, and should logically conclude that other prohibitions of a similar nature should be abolished.

Time and time again, the Supreme Court has supported the current meaning. The biggest problem is the third comma. With the third comma, it can be interpreted as both:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
and
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Basically, the third comma makes people believe it's a list of two things that can't be infringed.

"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."

Why didn't they put AND? These are not two separate clausal units, but are demonstrably linked to supporting the central theme, which is the security of a free state.

What's necessary to a secure state, in the minds of the founders?
A well regulated militia.

What is necessary for a militia to operate correctly?
Arms.

What should they then protect, in order to preserve the existence of a militia?
The right to bear arms.

We must wait until Washington state's legalized marijuana laws are a year or so old. Then we will have an example. Until then, all we can do is assume. Although, in April, we can observe Uruguay for a year.

Or most of Europe?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 9:17:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 10:03:26 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
Just yesterday there was a shooting in Florida, where two men got into an altercation over the use of a cell phone during the previews. This resulted in one man shooting the other.

Let's face it, Americans love shooting each other, and our current legislation does little to prevent that beyond putting more people in our ever crowding prisons.

So you would rather have people stab each other, or blow each other up using horse sh!t and pressure cookers?

I argue that the right to self defense, should be the second amendment, rather than the right to bear arms.
You cannot have a right to self defense without a right to bear arms... The Federalist Papers make clear that the right to bear arms was implemented so individuals could defend their families and communities not only from Foreign-Invaders and Native American raiding parties, but also from future despots abusing the Federal Military.

The right to bear arms was created in the context of their being in existence, a well regulated militia. Today that is not the case and the right to bear arms is not interpreted (wrongly so) as being applicable to self defense.

It is not the case because congress replaced the militia with the National Guard, because they feared the States had too much control over the militia. How is this justification for eliminating the 1st amendment?

Even without organizing communities into local militia, the fact remains that a well armed populace is a strong deterrent against invading armies and despotic rulers.

The fact is, not everyone who purchases a gun wants to use it to preserve life, and the government should institute additional restrictions for those who want to purchase guns, so as to mitigate the dangers from people such as the shooter at that Florida theater.

The constitution says people can be deprived of their rights through due process. So convicts can lose their 2nd amendment rights, but ONLY convicts.
I could go far more in depth, but for the purpose of starting the conversation, I wanted to be brief.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 11:44:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My source is this: Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

I would read this if I were you, read it before you replied and thought it would be a good read.

http://www.stat.duke.edu...

I forgot to write that I acknowledge the 2.5 million stat is wrong.

At any rate, I would trust the National Survey of Criminal Victimization results, which received it's last update in 2012, and is funded by the government. Rather than a self-report done by a clearly biased criminologist, who has questionable techniques. 2.5 million is absurd.

That depends. Not every crime is personal, between two people. Guns I own don't stop bank robberies, but they do stop people breaking into me house. When compared to crimes that actually involve self-defense, the ratio is more favorable. You also leave out number of crimes prevented by gun ownership. Criminals tend to avoid people to have a gun in their home or on them.

Criminals don't have some kind of special sixth sense, where they can sense whether or not a household owns a gun or not. Unless of course they know the person, or the person brandishes their 9mm every chance he gets around the neighborhood. I wouldn't say it's a deterrent, except in the instances where there is a confrontation.

Criminals tend to know the house they are breaking in to. They also tend to observe someone they intend on victimizing. It can be scary for a criminal, so if they believe you are armed, they leave you alone. If they don't, at least they have a higher chance of surviving. Criminals do pay attention to stuff like that.

Remeber, I'm not denying that firearms are used to prevent crime, I think they do, but it's not as effective as people like the NRA will have you think.

I don't listen to the NRA. I understand both sides do a lot of exaggerating.

I wouldn't legislate it either. Which is strange to me that people who argue for individual freedom, often argue most strongly against it when it comes to social issues.

I completely agree with you there. lol. We could go on for hours discussing that!

Of course 443,000 people die each year from cigarette smoke, which is about 6 times more than alcohol. Where are the smoking bans? Or don't even get me started on junk food, then you're into the millions, with regards to people who die prematurely each year as a result to abusing the food they intake.

I completely believe in a smoking ban. And I understand the need for some junk food limitations.

You can't legislate stupidity, without ending up in some truly hypocritical situations. How can our government prohibit illicit drugs, while regulating and allowing the use of alcohol, cigarettes and fast food. We can't let the government parent it's citizens, it doesn't work and creates even worse problems. People die prematurely for all kinds of dumb reasons, we can't ban them all, but we can attempt to mitigate people's ability to kill EACH OTHER.

They can't. They must legalize all or limit all. You believe they should make them legal, and I believe they should make them illegal. We could go on forever over that topic.

Supply is created BECAUSE of the demand, not the other way around. Cartels thrive in Central and South America, because the United States has created an environment where a black market will thrive. Usage will not go away, all we can do is make it safer, limit the distribution and eliminate the dealers and black markets behind the illegal trade. That would be accomplished via the end of the prohibition, and the regulation and taxation of illicit drugs.

The question is, if made legal, does the demand drop? There is a large demand hidden, people who want it but won't take because it's illegal. We just have to wait to see how it plays out with Colorado and Washington.

Well our per capita rate is higher than any other western country, and only exceeded by the countries of Latin America, which are a symptom of a problem that resides right here in America... namely the drug prohibition. Banning cigarettes will do nothing but strengthen these drug cartels as people will continue to use them, and it will just drive the market underground. Legislating stupidity is stupid. You replace problems that are pertaining to the choices people make that primarily effect themselves, with problems that effect almost everyone.

That's because of our economy. It attracts the bad from all them. Another issue with the US is our number of cities. We have a huge number of super cities and super cities attract a lot of crime. Especially Chicago and LA. As far as the underground is concerned, most people do give up things up if their illegal.

I didn't say murder, I said "kill," which is true. And many of the suicides and accidental deaths are due to a lack of safety with firearms, particularly concerning parents and children.

Anything beside murder is a social issue, not a gun issue.

The overall death rate is not what should cause us to introduce stronger regulations, it is the nature of the crimes which are contrary to cigarettes and alcohol. These are violent crimes that involve the intentional killing of human beings, citizens of the United States who often did not make a series of choices that caused them to develop a condition, but rather were caught up in a nation where this has become an epidemic.

That is the case with any object that kills. But even then, preventing criminals from getting guns with regulations will just make them get guns from the underground. It'll follow the pattern with Drug Legalization that you mentioned.

As I mentioned before, alcohol consumption went up 80% prior to it's repeal, so even if it wasn't repealed those numbers would have continued to increase as the black market became stronger. The numbers dropped because of the supply ceased, but once the supply was replaced via an underground market then the usage began to go back to normal.

Assume the Prohibition did fail like that. How would Gun Control work any differently?

When you decrease the arrests and deaths concerning alcohol, but increase the arrests and deaths concerning almost every other form of crime... how can that be considered a success? It was repealed because the policy proved to be a disaster, and that is why it is rightly taboo today, and should logically conclude that other prohibitions of a similar nature should be abolished.

All crime decreased with the Prohibition. Of course back then the underground wasn't as evasive and intercontinental.

"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."

Why didn't they put AND? These are not two separate clausal units, but are demonstrably linked to supporting the central theme, which is the security of a free state.

It's a list. That's why the third comma is there.

What's necessary to a secure state, in the minds of the founders?
A well regulated militia.

What is necessary for a militia to operate correctly?
Arms.

What should they then protect, in order to preserve the existence of a militia?
The right to bear arms.

I'm not sure if you are defending you point or mine.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 11:54:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've seen a lot of surveys on that self-defense question. As usual, the number is determined by how the question is asked. If you simply ask someone if they've used a gun in self-defense, the number skews high with people who are thinking about that time they waved a gun another driver or warned a neighbor that they had a gun. If you go to police records the number drops below even that 100,000 number (understandably).
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:21:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 9:05:40 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/15/2014 1:05:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Taking guns away from the government is an issue of magnitude several millions times more important, statistically speaking.

Are you speaking in regards to disarming our military? I think so long as we don't go on crusades like the Iraq War, we can do just fine with keeping it intact. Relative to the % of GDP that we spend on it, it isn't a big deal.

Americans citizens have proven far more effective at killing each other, than any other foreign opponent we have faced.

Disarming the government in all forms.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Juris
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:02:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
People depend so much on the Constitution considering that the latter was created many years ago. The provisions in the constitution may be applicable at the time it was adopted, but it is no longer the same today. In light of this, the amendment to the constitution must be flexible. That flexibility which would enable the government to change that "right to bear arms" provision.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:00:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 2:20:03 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/14/2014 1:30:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/14/2014 12:31:16 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:


Let's take a look at the text.

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.

What's necessary to the security of a free state? A militia. Therefore, by extension.. the rights of the people to bear arms is not to be infringed.

However, if the people cannot keep and bear arms, then we, the people, cannot establish a well regulated militia.

We don't have a well regulated militia now. Hardly anyone actually thinks that a militia would actually be relevant to actually fulfilling that purpose anyways. What well regulated militia could stand up the United States Military, should the U.S. become a totalitarian state and seek to subjugate the people?

The idea of a militia, is an idea only relevant to the days of our founding. As it is irrelevant, so is the supposed "right" for citizens to bear arms, and the right should instead be stated as a right to self defense, and coupled with proper regulations to protect the honest and responsible gun owners of our nation.

And NOT to protect people who unlawfully and violently use their weapons, such as the school shooting which took place this morning. Or the senile man who brings a .308 to a theater, and shoots a father texting his daughter, because he thought... " in fear of being attacked." Or that he had been hit with some unknown object... which was likely popcorn.

The misuse of firearms, to the detriment of society is a weekly, and too often DAILY occurrence, where innocent lives are ended. It's time to stop pretending these shooters had a right to carry a firearm.

Dude, have you not heard of the Taliban, Al-Qaida and the Viet Cong? They all fit the bill of militia in one way or another and they're kicking our military's butt and secondly, you can't bring a .308 (rifle caliber as is there is no .308 in a handgun) in public.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:08:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 9:43:55 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/15/2014 1:42:58 AM, donald.keller wrote:

Actually, Prohibition curved Alcoholism by nearly half. The number of drunks at the time was too high, so Prohibition was started to slow the rate down. Prohibition actually succeeded, the idea that it didn't came from the fact that it was repelled. Ending Prohibition didn't work, Prohibition did. Ending it was just the final stage.

It would for a while. The Cartels would switch to something else. One could debate quite a while over the effects of ending prohibition, but it's agreeable that ending the Cartels will curve violent gun crimes here and in Mexico.

Whatever ventures they then take up, be it the trafficking of illegal arms, would be heavily opposed and mitigated by our border patrol on account of the war on drugs being over.

One might argue that it'd be as effective as the war on drugs. The only will way to end the Cartels and Guns would be to solidify the border for once.


http://gunvictimsaction.org...

From that source, 60% of guns in crimes are already illegal. The number would than be higher. 95% is the highest estimate I've heard, but like I said, I doubt it's that high.


Well that 17%, as I mentioned, is added on by the murders done with the guns they sell. Cartels don't sell their guns straight up. It's gangs that sell the guns for them. Like how it's gangs selling the Cartels drugs to people. Curving gangs will curb a lot of gun murders.

It'll be hard. As the US has proven, when you try to regulate something, it just hides further in the underworld. The Black Market and vast underworld in the US makes regulations almost completely useless. Perhaps keep track of all downloads, since all downloads require online access. Although most people would get their blueprints from disks then. Then many people would bring up Privacy Issues.

Guns, even more so to drugs and alcohol though are often severe threats to the general safety of American citizens. If we end the useless drug prohibitions, it will alleviate law enforcement agencies to be more successful in their efforts to subvert gun trafficking by these illegal entities.

Guns are used to kill nearly 11,000 a year. Alcohol is linked to 75,000 deaths, and drugs to 17,000.


Well, guns are used in self-defense 2.5 million times a year. For the most part, Gun Owners are entirely responsible. Most people using guns as a weapon didn't have the right to a gun. The issue isn't how we see guns, it's how many illegal ways one can get a gun regardless of how we see them.


The Gun Debate regarding the interpretation is very complicated. I don't believe interpreting it can be consider clearly obvious, or the smartest among us wouldn't be arguing still. The court is rather certain it protects firearm ownership.
http://constitution.findlaw.com...


Culture and Neighbors, mostly. The US is in a very bad neighborhood. The US also has the largest gang membership in the world. The US, as the worlds single most outreaching and fruitful economy, is likely to attract the worlds worst.

Children killing other children with their parent's gun is so rare, that bringing it up is a far stretch.
http://en.wikipedia.org...


Many times family and friends give felons guns, they are just the middle man for the other guys. Many other times, the family/friend wasn't aware, likely half of them, since 15% of guns used are stolen. We can assume almost all of those are stolen from friends and family. It is true that most guns were obtained in a straw purchase.


I've been talking about gangs here. That's why I didn't write it as a direct reply. I was bringing up an extra point in the overall Gun Debate. Like I said, Gangs are also responsible for many to most black market trades. Taking out half of all gangs could take out half of all black market transactions made by single people.


That's another argument for another day.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the 2.5 million instances per year where crime is prevented. That is an absolutely fabricated number. According to the National Survey of Criminal Victimization, the figure is closer to 100,000. With the total number of crimes being committed being over 10 million, that is hardly a dent in regards to deterring crime effectively.

And with regards to the number of people who die from drug overdose, or other related drug deaths. That number would not go up, I project, if we were to legalize and regulate the distribution of drugs. People, would have easier access to aiding them into getting free of the addictions because it would no longer be criminalized, and they would not be able to obtain enough (through legal means of course) to kill themselves. The most commonly used illicit drug is of course, marijuana, which could only be argued to perhaps be linked to some deaths related to collisions on the road.

If usage were our only concern, then perhaps it would be a valid argument, but the fact is that the United States has the largest demand in the world for illicit drugs, and our prohibition has created a vast network of illegal organizations all over neighbor's countries. This has lead to countless more deaths than what the drugs themselves are responsible for.

If this were the primary argument, then banning smoking would be even more relevant as it kills WAY more people each year. The fact of the matter is that firearms and drugs cannot properly be compared, because one is a harm that one chooses for themselves, and the other is forced on an innocent victim. Guns are used to kill tens of thousands of people each year, over 200,000 in the last two decades. This is a symptom of the fact that we have a huge policy issue, that issue is the assurance that all citizens are guaranteed the right to own firearms (there are exclusions, but not enough).

Regarding the Prohibition of alcohol in America, the use of alcohol raised back up 80% before the law was ever repealed, which demonstrated that it was ultimately a short term and ineffective fix. It drastically increased crime in almost every avenue though, raising drug addiction by 44.6%, homicides by 12.6%, assault and battery by 13%. Ending prohibition, and forcing these organized crime elements to compete with cheaper legal options, decimated their organizations. So to argue that the prohibition was a smash success.. is really historical ignorance.

I also disagree with the sophistication of the wording of the 2nd amendment, it's only complicated because people are trying to fit all kinds of things that clearly are not implied. The issue isn't the text, the issue is people's interpretive principles.

You and I agree very much so regarding gang violence, and I think that will ultimately be the take away. Education reform and support for these poorer neighborhoods, along with ending the prohibition on drugs, is what I believe should be done. Mitigating people from my making truly stupid personal choices, is less in the interest of the United States government, than mitigating the harm people inflict on others. And reducing our costs, and increasing our revenue, which would be a natural consequence of the government backed regulation of the drug trade. It's not as if normal people will all of the sudden want to do heroine, I simply don't buy the argument that usage would shoot through the roof. Prohibitions just replace the problems of usage with even bigger social issues.

Actually it's closer to 500,000

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:19:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:08:27 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:

Actually it's closer to 500,000

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

Actually it's not, this guy simply states the following:

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

The best data we have on it, and the one that is the most current is the National Survey of Criminal Victimization, and it's estimates 100,000. Oromagi rightly pointed out that even that number is likely inflated.

Quoting a person who provides no relevant source to back up his claim of 500,000 to 3 million is not evidence.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:28:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:00:44 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Dude, have you not heard of the Taliban, Al-Qaida and the Viet Cong? They all fit the bill of militia in one way or another and they're kicking our military's butt and secondly, you can't bring a .308 (rifle caliber as is there is no .308 in a handgun) in public.

No I haven't heard of them... *sarcasm

I don't see the relevance in you pointing that out, my point about a militia is that in American society the concept is not viable nor relevant. Nor would I concede that they are "kicking our military's butt," except in the case of the Viet Cong.

I swear that I saw .308 in some news article that I had read, but you are right that that is a rifle cartridge. It was definitely a handgun.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:41:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 10:03:26 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
Just yesterday there was a shooting in Florida, where two men got into an altercation over the use of a cell phone during the previews. This resulted in one man shooting the other.

That's murder and it's already illegal.


Let's face it, Americans love shooting each other, and our current legislation does little to prevent that beyond putting more people in our ever crowding prisons.

This is an argument for the death penalty and drug legalization.

I argue that the right to self defense, should be the second amendment, rather than the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms was created in the context of their being in existence, a well regulated militia. Today that is not the case and the right to bear arms is not interpreted (wrongly so) as being applicable to self defense.

The right to self defense is a presumed natural right stemming from a diverse history of common law decisions both at the time of the constitutions writing and now. The right to bear arms is established as the best means for ones self defense. To disprove this is a pretty big mountain to climb.


The fact is, not everyone who purchases a gun wants to use it to preserve life, and the government should institute additional restrictions for those who want to purchase guns, so as to mitigate the dangers from people such as the shooter at that Florida theater.

This isn't an argument for eliminating the right to bear arms rather for increased regulations.


I could go far more in depth, but for the purpose of starting the conversation, I wanted to be brief.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:41:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just to add to my point, there was a shooting on Monday this week, the theater shooting. Then the next day there was a shooting at a school in New Mexico, where a 12 year old boy modified his father's .20 gauge shotgun and gravely wounded a young boy and girl.

Yesterday, there was yet ANOTHER shooting at an Indiana grocery store, two women will killed by the gunman, and then the gunman was subsequently killed by police officers in an exchange of fire.

This is just this week, I could go on about the man who was chased and gunned down on the freeway just last Friday.

There is a problem in America, and something needs to be done about it.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:56:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:28:15 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:00:44 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Dude, have you not heard of the Taliban, Al-Qaida and the Viet Cong? They all fit the bill of militia in one way or another and they're kicking our military's butt and secondly, you can't bring a .308 (rifle caliber as is there is no .308 in a handgun) in public.

No I haven't heard of them... *sarcasm

I don't see the relevance in you pointing that out, my point about a militia is that in American society the concept is not viable nor relevant. Nor would I concede that they are "kicking our military's butt," except in the case of the Viet Cong.

I swear that I saw .308 in some news article that I had read, but you are right that that is a rifle cartridge. It was definitely a handgun.

If your context of militia is the same as it was in the 1700s then yes it is viable. Necessary is another topic. And maybe you and I have 2 different definitions of butt kicking because Al-Qaida just took Fallujah. A city we "took""""""""" Over 6 years ago. So I'd say their butt kicking is more of the gradual type.

Could it have been a .38 or a .380? Those are popular handgun rounds.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:59:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:41:28 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
Just to add to my point, there was a shooting on Monday this week, the theater shooting. Then the next day there was a shooting at a school in New Mexico, where a 12 year old boy modified his father's .20 gauge shotgun and gravely wounded a young boy and girl.

Yesterday, there was yet ANOTHER shooting at an Indiana grocery store, two women will killed by the gunman, and then the gunman was subsequently killed by police officers in an exchange of fire.

This is just this week, I could go on about the man who was chased and gunned down on the freeway just last Friday.

There is a problem in America, and something needs to be done about it.

Like I said, guns are undoubtedly used more for self defence than for crime. The only way to curb this is to get rid of the black market like you said earlier, then implement a hardcore stop and frisk program to get the illegal guns off the street now. Implementing a third party FFL for private transfers and that will just about do it.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 10:02:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:41:28 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
Just to add to my point, there was a shooting on Monday this week, the theater shooting. Then the next day there was a shooting at a school in New Mexico, where a 12 year old boy modified his father's .20 gauge shotgun and gravely wounded a young boy and girl.

Thank goodness for gun free schools or this type of thing would happen more often, right?


Yesterday, there was yet ANOTHER shooting at an Indiana grocery store, two women will killed by the gunman, and then the gunman was subsequently killed by police officers in an exchange of fire.

Interestingly enough the gunman was only subdued by those who fired back at him. This seems to me as an argument for more gun ownership, not less.


This is just this week, I could go on about the man who was chased and gunned down on the freeway just last Friday.

There is a problem in America, and something needs to be done about it.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 10:03:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:41:09 AM, thett3 wrote:
That's murder and it's already illegal.

Your point?

This is an argument for the death penalty and drug legalization.

I support ending the drug prohibition, but my point was more so about instituting regulations to prevent crime, rather than just responding to these shootings. You can't stop them all, but I think we can make a difference as other nations have.

The right to self defense is a presumed natural right stemming from a diverse history of common law decisions both at the time of the constitutions writing and now. The right to bear arms is established as the best means for ones self defense. To disprove this is a pretty big mountain to climb.

The right to bear arms was not framed in the context of personal self-defense. Here is Alexander Hamilton's take on it.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state."

The right of self defense is here used in the context of constituents rising up in armed revolution against the government, in the case of representatives betraying them.

And in the No. 29 of the Fedarlist paper's he goes on to describe that an armed militia was the best defense against the a standing army that the American military might have. The second amendment was about preventing tyranny from the government, not the self-defense of citizens in instances that are relevant today.

The right to bear arms was for the people who wrote the Constitution the best means of self-defense of the PEOPLE against the GOVERNMENT. This is a fact, and an easily proven one.

This isn't an argument for eliminating the right to bear arms rather for increased regulations.

One can hardly regulate while the second amendment exists as it is, my replacing the right to bear arms with the right of self-defense, and arms being a privilege not a right, will allow us to further regulate these deadly weapons. This is how almost every other nation in the west does it.