More gun control

The first round will be for acceptance. Please only make a brief introduction of your position. Just to make things clear on where I stand. I am against new gun control proposals. I believe that the right to own weapons is one of the most Important rights a man can have. Without the right to personal security all other rights are in jeopardy. Please, No foul language.

"No foul Language"

I would never dare talk about birds in public.

I believe that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands and there needs to be a vetting process.

I expect you to attack my points hard and address my criticisms harshly.

Your floor.

I'd like to start my debate that small arms are extremely effective and essential to ensure tyranny doesn't overcome the populace. Historically an armed population is a free population. It might seem a little redundant but we could start with the inception of the U. S itself as It overthrew a powerful monarchy. Establishing the 2nd amendment "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. " You will notice the wording "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed. " It say's the right of the people. I know I'm being redundant but I really want to emphasize that it is the people who are being given the right to bear arms. Not the militias rights or the state's rights but the peoples right.
The next point I would like to make is the effectiveness of small arms in modern conflict. Many people claim that small arms are outdated or outmatched by the modern military machine. I would like to make the point that the Vietnam war was won by soldiers using primarily small arms against a modern war machine. They did this 3 times by my account. First the Vietnamese kicked out the french, Then the U. S, Then China. Those are 3 modern instances of, Primarily, Small arms defeating large conventional armies and all from the same nation.
lastly I'd like to say that the overwhelming amount of gun deaths don't come from mass shootings or any murder for that matter. Most gun deaths are attributed to suicide. 60% of gun deaths in the U. S are from suicide. (https://www. Theatlantic. Com/health/archive/2018/12/gun-deaths-city-murders-suicides/578812/) obviously people committing suicide cannot be stopped by removing guns.
on an aside I quite liked the foul joke. Obviously I'm not referring to a fowl but it did give me a chuckle.

So first off. What do you qualify as small arms? Pistols? Assault Rifles? I'm cool with pistols.

I hear this argument a lot about protecting ourselves from tyranny. The fact is that the U. S. Military would wipe us off the map even if we had decent weapons. You referenced the Vietnam war as an analogy. Pretty clever, But the technology back then was a little bit different and it's not like the U. S Military forgot about that loss. You think they'll fall for that trick twice? I think not. Look, I like the 2nd amendment too. But the founding fathers had no idea what kind of technology was around the corner. I think from a legal standpoint, The 2nd amendment should only be able to protect guns that the founding fathers could have conceived at their time. So basically pistols and maybe some low end rifles at best. No semi auto or up. Calibers could be liberal though.

The thing about suicide is irrelevant to me. If anything, It makes your argument look worse because if I was to really push it, I could say that guns increase the suicide rate. Some people don't have the nerve to kill themselves without a gun because of survival instinct, But with a hair pin trigger, They could even make a false try and do it by accident.

Your Floor.

I qualify anything up to one inch in caliber a small arm. To be clear my position is no new firearms laws.

You claim that the U. S will have learned from the last guerrilla war and will not make the same mistakes twice. You also claim that new technologies will make guerrilla warfare obsolete. I believe that the wars in the middle east prove you wrong. The Taliban, Al'Qaeda, And Isis are as relevant now as they ever were. We have been warring in the middle east longer than in the Vietnam war. These terrorist organizations have been implementing the same tactics to almost the same affect. Not that I support them. I'm only pointing out the tactics haven't changed.

The founding fathers had access to the most advanced weaponry of the time and used it.

More murders happen with handguns than with any other guns in the U. S. More crimes in general happen with handguns than other guns. (1) So why are you focusing on rifles?

Popping a bunch of pills or jumping off a building take just as much physical effort as pulling a trigger. You can do both by accident as well. I think your last point is just personal preference not something you can prove with logos.

Your floor.

On a side note, I appreciate making your points irreducibly complex. I hate having to put out fires that aren't actually burning down my house, Lol.

I accept your definition of small arms and then say I would probably reject some of the guns in that category, But I can't be sure. I'm kind of ignorant to gun models. But functionally I'm against any weapon that would allow a single person to inflict massive casualties within the window of standard police response time. This definition is necessarily broad since I make all of my arguments from the bottom up. Epistemologically speaking.

You bring up a fair points about extremist nations in the middle east. But let's be fair and say that if the united states wasn't attempting to posture for the moral high ground, They would be a little more effective. I say posture because I don't simply assume they're taking the moral high ground. Just presenting that image and maybe sometimes they're right. I would also like to point out that no American militia would ever utilize tactics such as suicide bombings or using children for warfare. If you posit as much, I think it would hurt your argument more than help.

You say the founding fathers had access to the most advanced weaponry of their time and used it. This is a non sequitur because it is not analogous. The best weapons used in the revolutionary war are far surpassed by some of the weakest weapons we have in modern day. I think their best weapon might have been cannons, Correct me if I'm wrong. A cannon could realistically kill maybe a dozen or so people depending on the area it hits. Possibly more, But I would never say more than 100 people unless they toppled a giant building or something. Compare that to a nuclear weapon and you see the glaring difference.

You say murders happen more with handguns, This is also a non sequitur. Pistols and rifles are not analogous in this case because pistols are simply more popular. Also, Who would commit suicide with a rifle? It's just impractical. This naturally drives the death toll up for pistols. I don't buy into statistics unless they're robust because they tend to tell us the wrong things. Pistols can't have a robust enough data set because gun technology has evolved to rapidly which forces us to restart our data point or at least separate them from each other. I judge things functionally and functionally speaking, An assault rifle is more dangerous than a pistol and can kill more people more quickly. These are facts. I don't need conflated statistics to know these things. So I think they're much better indicators of the truth.

To the suicide comment, It is not a matter of preference, Some ways are better than others. So what, You named another effect way to commit suicide. So let's put building gates up and it won't happen. Sweet! No we've stop two ways to commit suicide instead of one. Thanks for strengthening my point. Lol. On a side note, There is nothing I can't prove with logic and if it can't be done than it's probably something irrelevant anyways. I'm being hyperbolic when I say that, But I can definitely prove this one with logic because there are objective more effective ways to end one's life and that's a fact.

Your floor

I'm glad you accept my definition of small arms and that we don't require a dictionary. I see that your claim is based on how much damage can occur before police arrive. I have an article about a killing spree in China. 33 people dead and 130 injured in 2014. All of this damage done with knives. (2) I think this just goes to show that blaming mass murder instances on the gun not the people is a dumb premise.

I understand my reference to the middle east might not be palatable. I think that's just because we've had time to heal from the Vietnam war. The Vietnamese were just as ruthless in some cases. I would agree that Muslim culture is subject to much more scrutiny than others and for obvious reasons. I feel the tactics could be compared to yet another modern army. The IRA used primarily small arms and IED's. Using small arms they defeated the British and gained independence. Using small arms and IED's they gained equal rights in Northern Ireland. Perhaps this example will be more palatable.

Another weapon our founding fathers had access to is the Belton flintlock rifle that could fire 16 rounds in 20 seconds. So not only did they know about repeating rifle's but if you read the article they we're actively funding its development. (3) So this idea that the founding fathers were thinking about guns statically is a false narrative.

So what is an assault rifle? AR stands for armalight not assault rifle. So an AR-15 is armalight model 15 not assault rifle number 15. What about it is it that makes this type of rifle one that assaults? Aren't all guns capable of assault? Why the frankly new wordage over a gun? What about one semi-auto rifle makes it an assault rifle while others semi-auto's are for hunting? Is an M1A1 grand an assault rifle? It uses revolver technology in the form of a stripper clip. Is a gun from ww2 going to be banned because it's a semi-auto rifle? Where you draw the line is incredibly important to a debate about gun control and I think it's something you should have well thought out before you just start harping randomly on guns.

I'm pretty sure the length of the barrel isn't going to create a different affect on someones own brain. If you're wondering how someone would do it I guess just watch full metal jacket. Your solution for people wanting to commit suicide is building gates? Are you the same person who suggested suicide nets at apple? You are only looking at the symptom not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is sad people not guns or buildings. You have to address the people who commit suicide not just how they decide to go. Now before you say oh well then that's why we need a vetting process for gun ownership. 1in5 Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness. (4) That's 43. 8 million people you'd disarm. Most of whom haven't committed a crime. How do you think people are going to react to the disarmament of 43. 8million people? I'll tell you right now I wouldn't be having any of it. Also think of the precedent you'd be setting. You're essentially saying that a group of people is going to be in charge of who can and cannot own guns. Not based on someones criminal history just based on an hour session. Also, Logic would dictate that you prove your reasoning with quantifiable facts. Since I'm contradicting you hyperbole with real numbers I expect a real answer not an exaggeration.

Your floor.

Your stats about people with knives are underwhelming. I don't know how many people were involved nor do I know the details of the incident by which to judge the variables that led to that type of spree. I don't know the average police response time. I don't know how big the knives were or if they would pass American standards for a legal knife. I don't know what kind of community it was or if the population was dense or If the victims were resisting. It's simply an anecdote if you can't provide these details, So it's dismissed.

I thought I approached the middle east common pretty calmly. Don't know why you thought I found it unpalatable. The IRA is not a fair shake because the forces they took out wouldn't compare to modern standards. You also left out the part where IRA soldier were some of the best trained, Most brutal and precise killers in all of history. You also left out the part where they had exclusive access to a type of assault rifle that was superior to their opponents do to the fact that they could hide in water and deliver extremely fast no reflex kill blows from long range do to their intensive training. Just saying The IRA was a whole different monster.

I never said that the founding fathers thought statically about guns, That's a straw man. I said that the founding fathers had no idea what would come and we can only judge their decisions based on what technology they had in the time. We could push it forward a little bit, Because we can say they had SOME imagination of what could be. But nothing close to what we have. So what I actually said was that we should think about what they said statically. That's very different.

I don't presume to know the optimal standards for gun control. I would have to turn that over to someone smarter than myself, I can only measure them by killing power, So my standard would be to reduce the amount of people it can kill within a certain agreed upon time period.

I was simply pointing out that it is more convenient to kill oneself with a pistol. I never said it as impossible to do it with a Rifle, Just impractical unless it's your only choice of guns at that moment. I loved full metal jacket btw. Poor pile :(
I was using the building gate thing as an example of gun control. There is no rule saying we have to only stop suicide in one way. We can help them psychologically while still taking their sharp objects away, You strawman me again and say I want to strip a bunch of people of their guns. No I don't, I want to limit guns. That's completely different. If you're really hell bent on protecting yourself from tyranny, Then we should have state funded militias that are separate from the federal government and only design to help the people. That way we can have our big weapons and at the same time keep them out the hands of the dangerous or mentally ill people. It's funny you say I'm being hyperbolic when your the one who exaggerates statistics. That's why I don't use statistics. All of my arguments are epistemological so I can give practical and detailed answers without having to appeal to an authority.