The Instigator
AlexIsWright
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
chathura_viraj
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/12/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 112683
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

AlexIsWright

Con

Gun control is a bad idea, and unconstitutional. In the second is reads,"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." Not the last sentence NOT BE INFRINGED. It is important to keep the second amendment, and follow it original idea. Without this in place we would become a communist society. What would stop a government takeover when there is not armed people to oppose it. The first steps all in communist takeovers started with a gun ban. Nazi Germany or Stalin/Soviet Russia. This is why gun control is intelligent, and should not be heeded.
chathura_viraj

Pro

Rights will prevail until it hurts for someone's rights. ( Harm principle )

Ladies and Gentlemen :

This is the stance which I am going to prove throughout this debate. Even the opposition had agree that freedom to have a gun is a right which enshrined by the constitution. But in this debate I base my arguments on mainly two burdens.

1) Rights are not absolute & those can be limited according to the necessity
2) Its government's legitimate duty to protect its people ( paternalism ) and their rights : mainly right to life which is violated because of not controlling guns
Debate Round No. 1
AlexIsWright

Con

In your position you state that the freedom to bear arms violated their right to life. This is a fallacy. It is completely wrong to assume that all gun owners are denying people the right to live. It is not the gun that takes the life, it is the insane person wielding it.
Next, why are rights not absolute. They should be. If rights are not absolute then what stops the government from taking all of them. In stating that rights are not absolute you are contradicting your main point that,"Rights will prevail until it hurts for someone's rights." If your rights are not absolute then you have do not have them, including your right to live. This makes your entire argument a fallacy.
Your second point is almost as much of a fallacy as your first. So it's the government's job to protect our rights. Well then why are you proposing that the government take away our second amendment rights? Also the second amendment's purpose is to protect the people from the government. One flaw in your thinking is that government is perfect. The government always wants more power. As I pointed out in my first argument, "The first steps all in communist takeovers started with a gun ban. Nazi Germany or Stalin/Soviet Russia."
Now for my points.
98% of all shootings happen in gun free zones. People with malicious intent will exploit any means to hurt or kill. This is not the fault of the gun, but once again it is the insane person is is wielding the weapon.
We cannot ban guns based on the premise that they kill. Car crashes and drugs kill more people per year than guns.
Crime rates are nearly double in cities or states with stricter gun laws. Just look at New York vs. Texas.
This is pure fact that proves that the second amendment is absolutely necessary to reduce crime, and lead to a more uplifted society.
We can not allow the government to take or regulate our weapons. It would result in in the end a society with no rights, lots of crime, and general unhappiness.
chathura_viraj

Pro

Before my arguments, I will rebut what opposition said :

1) "It is completely wrong to assume that all gun owners are denying people the right to live.It is not the gun that takes the life, it is the insane person wielding it." - I agree that all the gun owners are not denying right to live. but it simply means that you also agreed upon that some people denying others right to live intentionally or not. So why shouldn't we try to control those some people by controlling guns. Legislature is enacting the laws for everyone. So it's government's duty to protect everyone. Also it is not the gun by it self but that insane person took other's lives by using it. Someone is using something to hurt others, surely we should control it for the sake of others.

2) "Next, why are rights not absolute. They should be" - Actually it is not a fallacy. There are no country in the world which all the rights are absolute. you have freedom of speech. That doesn't mean you can insult others as you want. If you have freedom to bear arms, that doesn't mean you can go and kill everyone you don't like. Every right has a limit. That's called as harm principle. You said I was contradicting but you can see clearly I was not.

You are talking base on an assertion which you said that "If your rights are not absolute then you have do not have them". It's actually a fallacy because if you have limits on your rights doesn't mean you don't have that. I proved above that every rights have limitations but still you own those rights. If someone is playing with other's lives, We should limit some rights in order to protect the most important right known as right to live. Actually the freedom to bear arms is not the most important right when you consider with right to live.

Rights will prevail until it hurts for someone's rights. I am saying again and again. If you have guns on your hands, anything can happen. Youths are not the most mature people in the country. What will happen a teenager get a sudden anger or uncontrollable mental failure? Their gun could be a deadly weapon for hundreds or even thousands of innocent people. Without intention they hurt others right know as right to live. So I think it should be controlled to protect others.

Also we have to understand that we are not stopping you from buying a gun. But we will control the facts like age and the other things to hold a gun. That's what we mean as gun control. Here we are not rejected your right to bear arms but we tried to control the guns for the sake of innocents lives.

3) "Also the second amendment's purpose is to protect the people from the government"- Who creates the constitution? The answer is we, the people. Then why we can't change that when their soul purpose of protecting people won't achieve in modern societies? When will you able to protect the people more? when every people hold guns including youth and shoot each other to protect from each other or when restrict the guns and give people a chance to talk before you use your gun to talk? If you have guns, Then it will mostly come before talks. Also you don't want a gun to protect your self from the government. Because the government will not come and kill you by seeing you have a gun or not.

4) "The first steps all in communist takeovers started with a gun ban. Nazi Germany or Stalin/Soviet Russia." - Just because two/ three countries communist takeovers were started by a gun ban does not mean every country which control the guns is going to takeover by communist. Also in a country like USA, it more than hard to think that communist will come and takeover the country by using a gun control.

5) "98% of all shootings happen in gun free zones. People with malicious intent will exploit any means to hurt or kill"- That because most shooting were happened at schools and places like that. So normally if you have a gun it is not usually use for defense. it is very rare to see using a gun for defense. Those guns usually use to mass murders. Another reason why these shootings happen is that thanks to no control gun laws, people get guns easily and come to the gun free zone and shoot. But if you put limitation on that, then it hard for get a gun for immature persons like students.

Also the countries which has gun control has fewer crime rate than USA. In USA there are several gun killings are happening regularly. But think about Asian countries. They don't give permission to hold weapons for any civilian. So the people can't come and kill the person whom they don't like.,
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.