The Instigator
Our_Boat_is_Right
Pro (for)
The Contender
BenjaminRogersX
Con (against)

Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
BenjaminRogersX has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 112524
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented "shall-issue" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.
BenjaminRogersX

Con

I understand and fully respect the principles and rights outlined in the Second Amendment - as a matter of fact, I support them. I accepted the debate as I believe there is more that could be done to further lessen the casualties due to gun-related violence; for example, longer waiting periods for certain makes of assault rifles (maybe 3-5 days for more high-powered weapons, lesser waiting times for those which aren't as robust), yearly (or at least, on a regular scale i.e. every three/four years) training courses, and higher standards for the keeping of these weapons (under lock and key, or with a fingerprint scanner or input code - something that, in the event of an emergency, wouldn't significantly impact upon the time taken to protect yourself but also adds preventive strategy from mentally-ill people from hijacking your weapons and doing dangerous, unruly things - similar to the way you unlock your iPhone). All of these factors can allow authorities to more properly vet those people who are a genuine threat to society, whilst also allowing those who are responsible gun owners to continue to live their lives. What I'm trying to do here is find some middle-ground; a compromise.

I am aware that there are already similar measures in place, such as background checks, waiting periods, and training courses - what I am proposing are just some more measures to spot the potential people who misuse these weapons and villainise the law-abiding citizens who use them properly; for self-defense, sport, hunting, and more. What we are seeing today happen in America is a significant increase in mass shootings - which, no matter what side of politics you are on, you can definitely agree is a bad thing. And because of strict rules on research and general toxicity around the gun-control debate in the U.S., we simply don't know whether or not it will truly help bring down mass murder and crime statistics. Other countries would point to tighter gun control rules as being able to help more than hinder, but until it is actually tested in the United States, we simply won't know.

What this solution proposes is a system that allows law-abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves, to play sports, and go hunting - whilst also decreasing the safety risk for everyone in the general public form lunatics who misuse guns and commit terrible acts of violence and hatred. The government should absolutely not interfere with the Second Amendment by banning all guns; because then, as you said, tyranny could take over - which is why the 2nd Amendment was established in the first place (you know, with the higher tea price and all :P). But what they also shouldn't do is do nothing; because standing by when clearly there is a problem (the problem may not be guns themselves, but how easy it is for mentally ill people to access them) is most certainly not the right answer. Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I'd be interested to see what you think of the points I've made; whether you agree or disagree, what you would change, or anything. (TL;DR: Guns should be able to be owned by law-abiding citizens, but there needs to be higher restriction to stop them from falling into the wrong hands.) :)
Debate Round No. 1
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

OK. Let's unpack some of the things you mentioned. You said longer waiting periods for certain assault rifles. Can you define assault rifle for me? Also, when you said 3-5 days for high-powered weapons- Can you define what a high powered weapon is? When you use the example of the fingerprint scanner- I think you have the right idea. I have not looked into the security of the guns too much but my first thoughts are the expensiveness to produce such things. I do agree about generally increasing security though-yes. For instance, I would like to see much better background checks. When you say America has an increase in mass shootings- that is what concealed carry is for. For example, in the Texas church shooting, the shooter got killed with an assault rifle by a civilian. This is also why teachers should have guns to prevent mass shootings in schools. But all in all, I completely agree with your premise. Guns should be allowed by law-abiding citizens, but there should restrictions to stop them from falling into he wrong hands. However, there will be some instances in which the shooter has not had any prior history or family history- so you simply can not prevent that, which is why i believe in teachers having guns and in concealed carry laws. I think we agree on the basic premise of your argument though-thoughts?
BenjaminRogersX

Con

When I refer to assault rifles and high-powered weapons, it"s a general term really, not anything scientific. When I think about the terms I generally associate it with the standard sort of big gun (think M4A4) that can fire relatively quickly. Nothing pedantic, but I"m not thinking about a handgun or a shotgun. Think "Call of Duty" primary weapons. :P

But obviously for legal definitions, we need a classification, which I"m going to provide here: A brief Google search showed me some of the capabilities guns have in terms of their rates of fire; ranging from 5 rounds per minute all the way up to fifty. (The website I got the rates of fire from is here, by the way; http://www.milsf.com...) If I were creating the legislation, I would say that as the rate of fire increases, so does waiting time. For example, a gun capable of shooting 50+ rounds per minute should come with a waiting period of about 5-7 days, whereas a simple shoot-and-reload pistol with a fire rate of around 10 rounds per minute might have a waiting period of 1-2 days. This time is more than enough to thoroughly vet and approve whether or not you're responsible enough to own the sort of gun you apply for. In general: the more dangerous (comparatively) the gun, the longer the waiting period.

Fingerprint technology ranges anywhere from $50 to $150. Safes that incorporate this technology range from anywhere around $100 - $500. They're mildly expensive, but in reality, it's something you would only really have to buy once - and price is arguably negligible when it comes to saving people's lives. Organisations could potentially lower the prices of guns (which is unlikely) to cop some of the brunt of the costs of the safekeeping " which they actually might end up doing, if statistics show that sales drop after new legislation.

Like you said; of course we can"t stop all mass shootings, as there will always be some unpredictable incident from somebody with no warning signs or no past history " it"s inevitable. What we should be aiming to do instead is minimise the amount of gun-related deaths; because, most of the time, a lot of them are easily preventable. Just because we can"t stop all mass shootings completely, doesn"t mean we shouldn"t try at all " and I think you and I are both in agreeance on this. And the way we should go about doing it, as we agreed, is definitely through better legislation; namely, longer waiting periods, increased background checks, and tighter security " but to remove guns or certain makes of guns is certainly not the answer, as is described in the 2nd Amendment and is protected by the United States Constitution " it"s there to protect citizens against a tyrannical, oppressive government, and it"s also for sport and enjoyment.

As for arming the teachers, I know there"s been a bit of controversy and I"m a bit on the fence. President Trump stated that he believes, (and I"m paraphrasing); "not all teachers, just the ones that volunteer- maybe 20-30%." If a teacher themselves is willing to be armed to protect their students, then I"m all for it. With proper training and coaching, it sounds like it could work very well. In cases where there are no volunteers, you could have a security guard paid for by the school to protect the students.
Debate Round No. 2
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

I think I am in agreeance with everything you said. I'm not sure about the waiting times, as it is not something I have thoroughly researched. I think they should conduct thorough background checks no matter the features of the gun, as you could do the same damage regardless of how fast it fires. We should try to increase security to try and prevent shootings. And I'm in agreement with you on the teachers; Don't force it upon them, but if they want to than yes.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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