The Instigator
Nathan55Hill
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
billsands
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

I'm anti Gun Control change my mind

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 732 times Debate No: 119140
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Nathan55Hill

Con

I'm anti gun control as I believe it is inefficient and immoral, Change my mind
billsands

Pro

How dare you! There is so much blood on the hands of the Aemrican government and the American people, Your cities are war zones, Every day there are mass shootings in your churches synogoues schools theaters and bars, You are not safe anywhere! And you glut of guns flows out of your nation onto the streets of Canada, Mexco and even into Europe. Anders brevit who lived in Norway what was the safest natio on earth got his illegal magazines for his gun online from the united states, Your disgusting gun culture pollutes the world. I can say this from 1976 to 1980 i lived in a clean safe north american city. . To do that i have to move to toronto canada to see what american cities might be like if we have better social welfare universal health care and strict gun laws. . You can own a gun in Canada but you must be licensed all handguns must be registered as must all restricted military type rifles. . The homicide rate in toronto to this day is 1. 8 per 100 000 compare that to an american city like detriot where the homicide rate is 45 per 100 000, There is no argument to justify the mayhem the maerican mentality causes, The second amendment which only originally gave states the ability to raise militias to check the power of the central government(actually a good idea to this day) never said anything about the individual right to possess fire arms or any weapon. . It is obsolete dangerous and should be abolished


The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, On the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.
Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms, " Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.
Debate Round No. 1
Nathan55Hill

Con

"How dare you! There is so much blood on the hands of the American government and the American people, Your cities are war zones"- A University of Pittsburgh study shows that about 80% of gun crimes are from illegal guns, Meaning that law abiding citizens are not the one's committing these crimes, Https://www. Nationalreview. Com/corner/study-vast-majority-gun-crime-isnt-committed-lawful-gun-owners/ there is no responsibility on the law abiding american people, The only blame should be placed on the criminals committing these acts.

"Every day there are mass shootings in your churches synagogues schools theaters and bars"- This is patently false, There are not mass shootings everyday. If we take the standard definition of a mass homicide by the FBI which is applied to mass shootings we have had 12 this year and 11 the year before. This is coming from a database by the LIBERAL think tank mother jones, Https://www. Motherjones. Com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
The whole concept that we have "mass shootings everyday" is completely asinine. In fact, Statistically we aren't even seeing an increase in mass shootings
https://www. Cnsnews. Com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/mass-shootings-aren't-rise-neither-are-victims-school-shootings
And in fact Gun Homicide has been steadily decreasing while private gun ownership has gone up, Now correlation doesn't equal causation so we can't say that more guns=less crime, But if their was a positive or casual relationship between more privately owned guns and more gun homicides we should see the opposite trend.
http://www. Aei. Org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

"you glut of guns flows out of your nation onto the streets of Canada, Mexco and even into Europe. "-
Mexico: In Senate Committee testimony, The BAFTE said the number was likely at worst to be in the "hundreds". As evidenced above, For 2007 and 2008, The average for all firearms seizures was closer to 40 per day (29, 000 guns/730 days), And only a fraction of these came from the USA by any means. Source: Senate Committee Judiciary, William Hoover, Assistant Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, March 17, 2009. As far as Canada and Europe, You're just making a claim you're not providing any empirical evidence, And doesn't this debunk your worldview and further make my argument even more valid? By your own logic gun control is inefficient because according to you even in places with strict gun control like Europe, There is still gun trafficking which allows for a black market. So essentially criminals are still getting guns, Thank you for proving my point.

"To do that i have to move to toronto canada to see what american cities might be like if we have better social welfare universal health care and strict gun laws. . You can own a gun in Canada but you must be licensed all handguns must be registered as must all restricted military type rifles. "- You're just making a statement about Canada's gun control laws but why is this important? Just stating their gun control laws without saying how efficient they are isn't an argument and doesn't hold any weight in a debate. But here's the facts, In Canada around 1920, Before there was any form of gun control, Their homicide rate was 7% of the U. S rate. By 1986, And after significant gun control legislation, Canada"s homicide rate was 35% of the U. S. Rate " a significant increase. In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U. S. (963 vs. 475 per 100, 000). One study of Canadian firearm law and homicide rates spanning 34 years "failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates" for three major gun control bills.
Sources: Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, At 360
Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online
Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008, Caillin Langmann, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, September 30, 2011

"The homicide rate in Toronto to this day is 1. 8 per 100 000 compare that to an american city like Detroit where the homicide rate is 45 per 100 000, "- You're demonstrating a informal logical fallacy called post hoc or the Correlation doesn't equal causation fallacy. Just because you see a correlation with less guns and less homicide does not mean that there is a casual relationship between the two. There are various socioeconomic variables and other variables that can account for this, There's probably more gang violence in Detroit, There is more poverty which leads to conditions that set up for more crime, The police response time and law enforcement efficiency in Detroit is awful compared to cities like Toronto. There is an ample amount of variables that can account for more crime in Detroit and less crime in Toronto. It is a fallacious and intellectually dishonest argument to say the reason for this disparity is ONLY because of guns and that it's definitively the casual factor.

"The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. "-
Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, "
Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. "
The justification clause does not modify, Restrict, Or deny the rights clause. Source: Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA
James Madison had the duty of drafting the Bill of Rights from proposed amendments submitted by the states, And most coming from state constitutions. The Bill of Rights went through several revisions. The initial version of the 2nd Amendment read as follows:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. The second drafting of the 2nd Amendment saw a rearrangement of the justification and rights clauses, But no change in the intents and purposes therein:A well regulated militia, Composed of the body of the people, Being the best security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, But no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. Notice that in the original draft, Madison used the phrase "free country" as the object of what is protected by the militia. In subsequent drafts, The word "state" was substituted. This is important because the concept of "state" and "country" are interchangeable, Whereas "states" (plural) and "country" are not. Throughout the rest of the Constitution, When the states and their powers were defined, The plural was always used but in the 2nd Amendment it was not. Clearly, The intent of militia protection defined in the 2nd Amendment was to protect a form of government, Not define the power of the several states. On top of this many state amendments had individual rights protected in their constitution before the constitution was drafted such as Kentucky:
Massachusetts (1780): The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense.
Quotes from the founding fathers:
"The constitution shall never be constructed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceful citizens from keeping their own arms"- Samuel Adams. James Madison also wrote that the bill of rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people. " He didn't just skip over the 2nd amendment. George Mason: "I ask, Sir, What is the militia? It is a whole people. The rest of your argument is an appeal to authority, I can further expand on the history of the 2A in round two but i'm running out of space
billsands

Pro

The constitution can and should be amended, Its original intent was to give states the power to form miitias it was never an individual right never, Experts interprested it that way till heller which was a fabrication, The second amenmdent is obsolete, And makes us unsafe and unfree.
Debate Round No. 2
Nathan55Hill

Con

"The constitution can and should be amended"- Again you have to give me a reason as to why you wan't to amend it. In a civil society with inalienable rights, This one being the right to defend yourself, We should always go with the presumption of liberty. If you wan't to take away or encroach on someone else's rights, You have to have a solid reason for it. You can't say no one needs an AR-15 or a bottle of soda, Or no one needs a Zelda CGI game although of course you could argue that those games were disasters. But either way, If you wan't to take away someone's liberties you have to have a solid reason for it. Every reason you gave to take away the second amendment I comprehensively debunked in round 2 with empirical evidence.

" Its original intent was to give states the power to form miitias it was never an individual right never"- You keep regurgitating the same point. I already did a comprehensive debunking of these arguments in round two, Do I really need to do it again in round 3? Again the Justification clause does not modify, Restrict, Or deny the rights clause.
Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, "
Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. "
Source: Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA
This is backed up by historical evidence because you have to remember James Madison, Considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, Wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". He never excluded the Second Amendment from this statement. As far as the term "states" you're using equivocation, Equivocation is fallacious reasoning when you use an ambiguous definition of a term to make a misleading argument. The ambiguous definition you're using is the definition of the word "states", In comparison to the original intent of the word state when it was written within the constitution. The original intent of the word "state" when it was used in the constitution was synonymous with the word country. This is shown by the original drafts of the bill of rights when they used the terms "free country" instead of the finalized version which was "free state. " This was the first draft of the second amendment, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. " This was the second draft of the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated militia, Composed of the body of the people, Being the best security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, But no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. " See how they replace the terms free country with free state? They're synonymous with each other. Also through out the constitution they refer to states by using terms such as power of the states, They never once use the term the power of the state. It's significant to understand that difference.

"power to form miitias"- "We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, Limit the federal government"s power to maintain a standing army, Or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, Like other parts of the Bill of Rights, Applies to and protects individual Americans. " source: U. S. V. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331. Historical context backs this up as well as, Allow me to quote George Mason, "I ask sir who is the militia, It is the whole people except for a few public officials. "

"It was never an individual right never"- "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? , Tench Coxe
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. "
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334, [C. J. Boyd, Ed. , 1950]
"The right of the people to keep and bear. . . Arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, Composed of the body of the people, Trained to arms, Is the best and most natural defense of a free country. . . "
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"The great object is, That every man be armed. . . Every one who is able may have a gun. "
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, P. 3:386
The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. "
-- Zachariah Johnson, Delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
It's always been an individual right. This is hardly up for debate

"Experts interpreted it that way till heller which was a fabrication"- Really, Which experts? Your committing another fallacy called the anonymous authority fallacy. Which experts? Do you give any empirical data to support your claim. If you say you heard from x that y is true you have to first identify x, Then give historical data to back up your claim because even if you identify x you still have to prove empirically or historically that y is true or else it would be known as an appeal to authority.

"The second amendment is obsolete"- No one is claiming it is, In fact the people who wrote heller didn't even claim it was, Your basically straw manning me here because I never claimed that it was. In fact why are we even arguing about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment? My conclusion is that gun control is inefficient and immoral, Not that the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership. But since you wan't to argue that, I have to duty to prove you are wrong because I'm also a 2nd amendment supporter.

"And makes us unsafe and unfree. "- Our government hasn't gone fascist in over 300 years I'd say that pretty good progress. As far as unsafe, The CDC estimates that every national survey indicates that guns are used defensively at the lowest 500, 000 times and at the highest 3 million times. Even at the lowest number it's higher than offensive gun use, "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, In the context of about 300, 000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. "
Source: https://www. Nap. Edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

I already proved that gun control was inefficient in my previous arguments now let me touch on the immoral argument. Me owning a gun doesn't inherently put you at risk. The mere action of owning a gun doesn't put anyone at risk. However, Taking away someone's gun or making it harder for the person to get a gun, Which is used as a tool for self-preservation could put me at risk which directly encroaches on my inalienable right to life. If i'm a single mother with no intention to aggress on anyone else's right to life, And I live in Detroit in a crime infested area with a high risk of rape, Murder and robbery and you take away my concealed carry permit or gun, You're directly increasing the risk that my right to life may be taking away, As well as my right to property if you assume I could get robbed. Compare that to the situation of a gun owner with good intentions just owning a gun. That doesn't inherently put your right to life at risk. However, If I were to go and shoot you with that gun that would be murder and murder is already illegal. See the difference?
billsands

Pro

All you have to do is look at our homicide rate compared to the homicide rates of other industrial nations like Canada or Australia, All the hand gun deaths all the mass shootings, We should get rid of all the guns and the second amendment, There is no way to convince you of what narmal people can see so easy. You are blidned by ego and selfishness, You blather on about a freedom you never possessed or deserve, You don't have a right to endanger other people in or society with your guns.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by WhiteHawk 3 years ago
WhiteHawk
Billsands, Every one of those murders, And mass shootings happen in gun free zones. . .
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
Man is pretty resourceful. Man will always find ways to kill another man, So you legislate guns all you want, That is not going to get at the heart of the problem-- a person's desire to kill another person.

So, As long as people have this disordered desire to kill another person, Please don't take away MY ability to defend myself by legislating weapons. Thanks!
Posted by WhiteHawk 3 years ago
WhiteHawk
By far, The city with one of the most murders committed by gun is in Chicago. Guns are banned there. You tell me why this is happening, Billsands.
Posted by joshg4963 3 years ago
joshg4963
Listen, Taking away all guns will not help with anything, Instead doing things like background checks for mental illnesses would be more effective. It is not the gun that would kill people, It is the person. Also, The Bill of Rights provides the Right to Bear Arms, Taking it away from everyone would be unconstitutional.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, On the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.
Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms, " Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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