The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

New Member Debate: (Domestic) Gun Proliferation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,896 times Debate No: 18460
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




Alright, hopefully the debates I present can be interesting. Also, sources are optional for the time being-- we all have the ability to google facts and can do so on the fly. I assume we can all tell the differences between legitimate & erroneous sources. I will open without researching what I currently understand, (should make it easier yes?).


I posit that gun control in the US is both unconstitutional and counter-productive.


C1: The 'founding fathers' fully intended every American to have access the same firearms issued to an army.

In arguments concerning gun control, one point touched upon routinely by gun-control enthusiasts is that, "(The founding fathers never envisioned automatic weapons and armor-piercing rounds when they wrote the second amendment)." This infers that the 2nd amendment would be written differently had guns of the day possessed the same killing power of modern firearms.

I put forth that when the amendment was written, there was no difference in the power of firearms private citizens were to be allowed to carry and that of the firearms allotted to the armies & militias of the time.
I.E., the originators of the 2nd amendment showed no intentions of limiting the power private citizens could wield relative to the cutting edge of the day.
-- if they had, one could assume they would only protect pistols, muskets, and perhaps rifles of only certain makes, calibers, or capabilities.--
E.G. Kentucky rifles provide too much power to the citizenry, as they could (too) easily dispatch many people at long distances.

Furthermore, I remember the gist of a quote from one of authors stating, in effect, that any invasion of America would be thwarted in a manner impossible anywhere else because the invader would be met with an army the size of the entire population.

C2: Gun availability and Crime rates do not make a trend-line

2 points here:

----In England, any and all guns are prohibited, yet violent crimes and murders have not gone down-- but stabbings and bludgeons have gone up.

----In the western US, there is almost no such thing as 'strong-arm robbery'. The reason? If you attempt to rob a convenience store by pulling out a gun and demanding money, you can expect to find:
1. The clerk holding a shotgun to you under the counter
2. The person behind you in line putting a revolver to your head
3. Every other customer in the store pulling out their guns as well

What I am saying is that not only is gun-control ineffectual in curbing violent crime, but could also play the opposite role in allowing more crimes to be committed.
-The gun has been called 'The great equalizer' because it allows anyone the same ability to defend themselves as anyone else.

Furthermore, these laws only prevent lawful citizens from acquiring and possessing firearms. Those that will commit murder with a firearm most likely aren't going to worry about the illegality of possessing one.
The result is a *near-defenseless* citizenry and a criminal element (almost) as deadly as before.

C3: Accidental deaths, aggression, the kitchen sink


1. Accidental deaths by firearms are more likely to happen due to an ignorance of them, not exposure to them. If timmy knows guns are dangerous, what a real one looks like and what (not) to do if he finds one, he's less likely to accidentally shoot his friend. Likewise, less exposure is more apt to producing users unfamiliar to using a firearm and thus more likely to make mistakes.

2. Having a firearm doesn't lead to an angry husband or bar-crawler shooting someone when they otherwise only would have assaulted them. This argument is the same as 'legalizing heroine won't cause every cannabis smoker to become a dope-junky'. If anything bars where firearms aren't prohibited are more polite, as one can never know who is packing.

3. Our phobia of guns is causing wonton division.
Why do we want gun control? Because we don't trust each other with guns. May it be billy-bob the stereotypical redneck from deliverance, those crazy gun-nuts at the range, or the scary black person walking down the street, we can't seem to believe we aren't about to kill each other.
--And we seem to be so afraid of this imagined confrontation that we are willing to attempt to wrap invisible chains about each other to prevent it.

We need to have the courage to defend ourselves, each other, and to respect each other as fellow countrymen, not castrate each other for want of rape.

I contend that the freedom to possess and use firearms is one of the traits that has set the US apart from much of the world in the past, and is an integral piece of our heritage. If we lacked it, we would not have the same character we have today, and to remove it would only serve to weaken our national unity.


Good morning! I've been absent from DDO for quite some time, but I figured it was time to revisit my favorite debate site. :)

I thank my opponent for creating this debate, and wish him the best of luck in the coming rounds.

Note: due to character limits, I haven't had the space to adopt my own offensive advocacy. However, as the Con, my burden is simply to prove my opponent's arguments wrong. I believe that an advocacy establishing the effectiveness of the status quo emerges, though. Basically, I'm a fan of gun restriction to the extent that it exists now in the U.S.

Onto the round!


Overview: Though I bring this up a couple times during the debate itself, it's important to note that my opponent has stated that we are debating current gun control policy in the U.S. This means that any ground he is drawing from a dichotomy between having NO gun access and full gun access becomes non-topical, since gun policy in the U.S. doesn't operate that way. I say this because my opponent makes this assumption in a vast majority of his arguments.
C1: Founding Fathers

1. There's no point in disagreeing that the text and spirit of the 2nd amendment never state much about the power of weapons citizens could possess, because that would appear to be true. However, that doesn't mean that the power of such weapons isn't a matter of contention. Common sense and legal/court precedent dictate that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to reinterpretation and change based on citizen and elected official consent. If the majority believes that certain firearms should not be for public consumption and the Constitution is not specific in its wording, interpretation is perfectly justified.

2. This has little to do with gun control in the first place. The main point to be made is that the intent of the amendment was originally to protect small towns from British invasion when revolutionary troops could not arrive in time to save the day. The "cutting edge of the day" that affects the amendment now isn't the power of the weapons, per se, but the ease with which our army and National Guard can assist our cities and towns. Furthermore, considering the very nature of modern warfare and terrorist threat, having an automatic weapon under your bed will hardly protect you from bombs and missiles. The chances of a ground war in the States involving citizens is miniscule. So, if you want to win any part of this argument, you have to prove otherwise.
C2: Guns & Crimes


1. Since when is gun control characterized exclusively by a 100% lack of guns in households/with private citizens? Yes, that has been a stated goal of some gun control advocates, but that hasn't come to fruition in the United States. This point is essentially non-topical as your topic states that we are debating current domestic policy. I can't think of a single state that has abolished guns, or that is even considering abolishing guns. Nor can I recall a federal piece of legislation working to accomplish that at the moment.

2. Can you cite your source for the bludgeon/stabbing data? I don't believe it to be accurate. According to the UK National Archives data for 2008-2009 (the latest available), weapons are only used in about 21% of all violent crimes in the nation (weapons of any kind). While knives and other non-gun objects are used more than guns (knives 7%, glass/bottles 5%, "hitting implements 4%, and guns 1%), their data indicated no rise in the use of knives or hitting objects over the last decade. The only slightly notable increase in the use of non-guns in crimes was the use of knives in attempted homicides. All other violent crimes using non-gun weapons decreased in 2008-2009. (1)

Strong Arm Robberies:

1. How is this scenario not a powder keg and completely irresponsible? The point of utilizing the social contract in a civilized society is to give up some of our personal, natural rights to the state in order to prevent chaos. Not every citizen in the US can or should wield a gun at another in prevention of crime. Even highly trained military officers and police officers make mistakes in the commission of their duties. How do we ensure that millions upon millions of citizens are using firearms in such situations as the one outlined by my opponent fairly and wisely? Or do we simply de-evolve into convenience store fire fights for justice?

2. In what state would this actually occur? Even if guns are perfectly and 100% legal (without restriction based on gun safety education, licensure, weapon strength, etc.) not every citizen would choose to have a gun in the first place. Clearly, this cooked up scenario has nothing to do with preventing strong arm robberies. Second of all, I challenge you to actually prove via legitimate data that the possession of fire arms by citizens is actually preventing crime. You don't do that at all-- you just assert that it's true and expect us to believe it. We could also attribute a drop in crime rate to increased youth education, deterrence based on punitive measures in place in each state, etc.

Accidental deaths:

While I agree, unrestricted access to firearms doesn't accomplish this goal. Timmy's grandpa can have 20 guns in the house that are all perfectly legal to own, and his grandpa probably had to pass mandatory gun safety courses to get them. But unless Timmy's grandpa takes the initiative to teach his grandson about guns (not a legal requirement), or locks up the guns per state laws, Timmy just being around guns doesn't ensure he can't blow his friend's head off. This point is non-topical.

2. Assault

My opponent misunderstands the point that most gun control advocates try to make when they discuss such scenarios. The argument is that the angry husband or bar crawler is going to have a much easier time killing someone with a gun versus another object. Sure, anyone can kill another human being with just about anything. But, common sense dictates that a gun will certainly get the job done more efficiently than most other objects.

3. National Unity

1. Xenophobia is not a new phenomena, and it won't be going away anytime soon.

2. I don't think you can equate gun control to a simple fear of the other, anyway. Logically, it makes the most sense to restrict weapons to those who are the most trained to not only use the weapon (in terms of its mechanics), but to administer its power fairly and wisely. Granted, to err is human. Even the officers that we vest with the authority to wield all manner of weapons have made mistakes with them. But we've acknowledged the statistical likelihood of them using those weapons properly since we've had an organized military and police force.

3. This is a highly silly argument full stop, and could be used as a justification to eliminate all laws, and the state, in fact. Let's get rid of anti-murder laws, because we should just be able to implicitly trust every human being around us. Traffic lights are clearly unnecessary as well, because every driver is clearly competent and trustworthy. Furthermore, turn this argument, as common sense would dictate that allowing just anyone to possess a concealed firearm would actually lead to more fear that it would be discharged unjustly or incorrectly, since there is a reason all laws are in place: human beings are naturally unpredictable and not always rational or concerned with the safety of those around them. This is an inarguable fact.

Debate Round No. 1


Hello once more, my thanks go to alto to have the patience to debate me. I can see already I may have my work cut out for me learning how to debate.

I'd like to open by clarifying my stance-- the current dichotomy I am (trying to) argue is between more and less access to firearms. My topic states that I am arguing for Gun proliferation, not against current gun control per se. It's because of this that I stated,
"I posit that gun control in the US is both unconstitutional and counter-productive."
Which unfortunately narrowed my argument more than I intended. I cannot argue on this further than that was not my intention, (I know, bait and switch), so I ask for leniency-- but expect none. But onto the main points.


C1. Founding Fathers
The argument I presented here was aimed at one my opponent never made in this debate, and as such I realize now I cannot argue against it as I had intended.
The counter my opponent has put forth is that since the constitution is a living document, the current population is contracted with interpreting non-specific sections of the document. And whatever they choose to interpret it as is the right way to interpret it.
I cannot argue that the constitution should not be a living document, but I do propose a distinction in interpretations.

Good outcomes of interpretations include the addition of the freedom of movement and freedom of privacy. In these cases the supreme court ruled that these freedoms are implied, and that without them the rest can be rendered moot.

However, interpretations have gone the other way, case and point Plessy v Ferguson where the supreme court ruled that state-sponsored segregation was constitutional.

I put forth that some interpretations are not as good as others, and *generally* one can see that cases where adding freedoms are more often better interpretations than those that limit them. *I make this argument for personal, not state, rights*
My opponent states that the original intent of the amendment was to allow or citizenry the power to defend themselves in revolutionary times. And that since we no longer have to worry about british troops, the amendment is now vestigial.
This could not be further from the truth.
While the ability to bear arms would help the citizenry defend against an invasion, as I stated in round one, the intent of the amendment was not to "protect small towns from British invasion when revolutionary troops could not arrive in time". In reality the amendment was meant for several reasons, two more of which include the ability of a citizen to defend his person in ANY case, and also to assure the government cannot be unlawfully overthrown and our people subjected to an invalid state.
An old adage is that when a dictator comes to power, the very FIRST thing they do is disarm the populace.

A last point: My opponent says "The chances of a ground war in the States involving citizens is miniscule." There is a reason this could be possible: if all sides simply refuse to use nuclear warfare, and yet there is irreconcilable strife, a ground war is the only recourse. (unless we go for rock-paper-scissors)

C2. Guns & Crimes
1. Included at the end of this paragraph are two possible sources of the data I had put forth in the previous round. The study you produced takes place many years after gun control went into effect in Britain, and as such does not pertain to the effects of gun control.

>An article from a 2002 issue of Reason magazine, >a libertarian mag
>A standard pro-gun website which includes sources. Includes statistics about Australia as well.

2. I was not saying that convenience store firefights are the solution, but rather the possibility of that scenario deters the crime. I cannot seem to find the actual quote, but it is touched upon in the previous reason source that the biggest fear of burglars is not the police, but instead armed home owners. Here are a few sources to compare gun-carry laws and other restrictions with crimes on a per state basis. Plus an interview. If you take a look at the statistics, there is no indication that gun control decreases crimes, and if anything concealed carry reduces crimes such as armed robbery.
Gun crime by-state, with a graphic:
Gun Laws by-state, wiki:
I simply don't have the time to make a trend-line, my apologies.

It should be a citizen's right and prerogative to carry a firearm, not a state mandate either way.

C3. Kitchen sink

1. It doesn't guarantee anything, only suggests a difference. If a child grows up spending every summer in the car with their family, they're more apt to pick up patterns in driving. This point is to reinforce that exposure to firearms not only doesn't hurt anyone in and of itself, but can actually play a positive role.

2. I will concede that I misunderstood, but as in C2, the proliferation of firearms may have a dampening effect on swings of emotion. Furthermore, depending on the type or caliber of the firearm, a knife or cudgel could result in an injury far more difficult to treat than a gunshot.

3. If we wish to argue about the extremes of our positions, then how far are we willing to go with laws and regulations? After all, think of all the lives we would save if we lowered the speed limit to 5mph-- we simply cannot trust each other not to try running us all down, or accidentally plowing into a gas station, (fireball explosion yes!)

I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but rational discourse would ask for a reasonable compromise. I would not be opposed to a license system for young members of society, nor convict restrictions. This however is only due to a demonstrated lack of ability to act reasonably, and an assumed one that can be overturned. A standardized firearms course in public education like that for vehicles would be acceptable as well.

One final thrust:
Of the current gun regulations, there are absolute bans on weapons in several states, mostly focusing on 'assault rifles' and handguns. These are absolute bans and are my backup raison d'etre.


I thank my opponent for his 2nd round, and I wish him the best of luck in the 3rd. I also apologize for my tardiness in posting. Stupid job...

I've listed responses in order, but had to eliminate some of the punctuated separations due to character count.


Overview: It's important to the debate that we recognize that full banning of firearms is not a realistic possibility for the U.S. I maintain that arguments involving full bans of all types of firearms are non-topical.


Living Document:
1. Of course the Supreme Court is not without fault. However, over the last 228 years, our justice system has improved immensely from what it used to be. Note that clearly unjust rulings, like the one my opponent mentions, have been reversed. This is why we have the checks and balances system, so that a body like the Supreme Court can't just railroad freedoms. Furthermore, considering the qualifications that those justices have, there is a clear and justified reason that we would defer to them for interpretations of the Constitution.

2. My opponent states that, generally, adding freedoms have led to more positive good than limiting them. First of all, the limitation of access to firearms to the general population can easily be seen as increasing the freedom of some while decreases the freedom of others (the protection of my right to life and due process over a gun owner's supposed right to an automatic weapon). Second of all, the freedom being expanded needs to be a justified one. Allowing the public access to all firearms is not only impractical, but a complete bastardization of the 2nd amendment.

1. My opponent states, wrongly, that the 2nd Amendment was created in order for citizens to protect themselves against any and all threats, including those posed by fellow citizens. Look at the text of the 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."

The intention was to maintain a "well regulated militia," and this was to ensure the "security of a free State." While you could argue, based on the text of documents like The Declaration of Independence, that the founding fathers had intended to direct this to both foreign invading ground troops and one's own government, you would be hard pressed to prove that this was directed at citizens exercising vigilante justice on their peers. If this was the case, then why do we cede control of the enforcement of laws to police officers and judges? We do it because we operate within a social contract state. As for protecting ourselves from a despotic government, governments like ours that have "disarmed the populace" are places like Great Britain. I don't see those first world, democratic governments turning into tyrannies anytime soon. My opponent needs to be at least moderately realistic.

2. Let's face it: the only time personal firearms would be helpful at all in a war situation (which is what the amendment directly pertains to) would be in a ground war. Those aren't going to be waged on U.S. soil. My opponents only response to this is, "well, erm, it's possible...". That's just not good enough.


1. It's a little funny that my opponent is trying to discredit a government crime study conducted by the U.K. simply because "it's newer than his stuff." If you read my opponent's "sources," it wouldn't surprise you that there might be a temporary increase in crime rates following a major ban on firearms in a given country. However, as my source clearly states, in 2008-2009, gun crime has actually dropped off significantly since the U.K. banned firearms. Also, please note that my opponent clearly was attempting to use this data as CURRENT data, as his point was that criminals in the U.K. had simply switched to bludgeoning or stabbing weapons to commit the same crimes. My data proves that crime rates are DOWN and that his assertion was false.

2. My opponent's sources are essentially opinionated blogs written by hardcore fans of absolute gun access. Neither website is reputable or edited by research experts in their respective fields. The article is riddled with pleas to emotion (like the paragraphs in which the author highlights particularly disaster-pornish singular incidents of gun violence, like that in any way corresponds to crime patterns in the U.K.).

Strong Armed Robbery:
1. My simple response to this is prove it. I posit that you can't, because professionals in the judicial and law enforcement field have been trying to research deterrence for decades, and haven't been very successful as it's awfully hard to research WHY a criminal chooses to commit a crime or, more importantly, doesn't choose to.

2. Without touching deterrence either way, I can logically warrant my argument that citizens should not have full access to firearms due to our obligations within the social contract. I made this argument in the last round, and it goes totally unaddressed. To refresh the readers, I argued that, in order to maximize safety and more accurately ensure that guns are used wisely and fairly, they should be at least partially restricted from the general population. My opponent had no answer to this.


1. This correlation is a bad one. Exposure is simply not enough. Look back to my analogy for this argument. If Timmy isn't educated by Grandpa about the guns that Timmy is exposed to, the risk is just as high that Timmy will do something foolish as not. This can be likened to showing teenagers a porn flick and then saying, "Alrighty kids. You've been exposed to sex. Go have fun!" There was a community in Georgia, I believe, that discovered a 200+ ring of kids, ages 12-19, all having sex with each other on a regular basis without protection. They found out because a bunch of them got syphilis. By the way, this community had a strict abstinence-only education policy. Clearly, these kids were exposed to sex, but without the proper education, exposure was ultimately useless.

2. The meat of this argument is basically conceded by my opponent. I'm not looking to nit pick about exactly how deadly a gun is versus a knife/bludgeoning weapon.

On my 3rd Response:
1. Not to patronize my opponent here, but he really *does* shoot himself in the foot with this line of argumentation. What he espouses in his "compromise" is basically status quo. My opponent can't have it both ways.

2. Again, my argument about who can use weapons most wisely and most fairly goes unanswered. This has now become a crucial voting point for this debate, as my opponent has essentially conceded that, reasonable or no, an ordinary, untrained citizen has no need or reason to have access to things like automatic weapons (basically any weapon banned in the U.S. in the status quo). This is what the police are for. He also concedes that, while not a perfect system (as it does involve human beings), it is far superior to a free-for-all system.

3. I was using hyperbole to point out how silly your argument was. =P If we want to be technical about it, 5 MPH would actually be far less safe, as many more people would be encouraged to speed at that point, and our roads would inevitably be more congested. Furthermore, I would bet money road rage would skyrocket. I know mine would! But, on the more serious side, the most important part of that argument was the point that my opponent concedes: human beings are naturally unpredictable and not always rational or concerned with the safety of those around them. This is why we have laws in the first place.

PS: As for absolute bans on weapons, that's a mischaracterization of the laws. There are absolute bans on classes/types of weapons (depending on how dangerous they are), but there is no absolute ban on guns as a whole. Obviously, people in all states can own firearms. Which ones is the question.
Debate Round No. 2


I know the feeling with tardiness, and my appreciation as always for the time spent on the debate.
Onto the last round.

C1. Constitution & Intention

1. My argument was not that false laws or interpretations last forever, but that they DO happen. Popular opinion, legislation, and even judiciary scrutiny is not infallible, and so these laws that restrict personal freedoms are damaging still.
2. My opponent, (this third person stuff seems rude, I must say), is asserting that the mere possession of firearms by others infringes upon he(r?) right to life and due process. I posit that such a relation doesn't exist. To infringe upon those rights would require unlawful murder, and that is a matter separate from the right to keep and bear arms.
3. I am adding an argument here. My opponent implied that being shot in the assumed perpetration of a crime is a violation of he(r? I need a new pronoun) right to due process. Unfortunately this set of priorities places the right of life and due process of the suspect above the right to life of any possible victims in the area. This priority would criminalize an individual defending their right to life, and place law-abiding citizens at the mercy of ruffians. I disagree.

1. I hate to reference scalia, but I defer to him in DOCvheller:
"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people""

It seems that while my opponent is able to argue that I am advocating an anarchistic state where vigilantism rules, the more than obvious extrapolation of my opponents arguments are non-topical. This is unfortunate as my opponent's words are saturated with inferences to just such a degree. And to add to it now I feel embarrassed expressing my anguish over this, botching of an opening, as if it were only a ploy to win. Euch.

My opponent routinely calls on the unpredictability and unreasonableness of humans as a species in looking towards control. However, the same scrutiny of an individual human is denied to the structures and organizations, to the macro interactions of the species.
Hamilton said in federalist paper 34,
"To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character."

If we are to remain skeptical of human nature, then it should be obvious that disarmament, strict or otherwise, and reliance on the society, (not your neighbors, friends nor community), on the state, is a fool-hardy endeavor that leaves its members open to abuse.
The social contract requires the abandonment of some rights to secure safety & stability for it's users, but to take away a person's right to defend themselves * is treading down a dark road.
*,AGAINST ANYTHING, for the sake of the social contract,*
This argument is non-topical, much to my chagrin. Therefore it only applies to talks of Britain.

2. Prove it won't occur on US soil.

C2. Forfeit & strongarm
1. Outclassed, no retort.

2. An armed home owner scares burglars most of all. The same can be assumed for other crimes, and a fear is a logical deterrence.

Forfeit on other points.

-oh, except screw becoming Britain. Free speech isn't the same as in the US and the cameras + lack of arms aren't encouraging.

1. Appeal to emotion, and an analogy that doesn't give you an advantage-
To use your analogy, if those kids were shown porn regularly, you can BET they will know what goes where and what happens. All 200 of them were, in fact, having sex after all. That would be proof of concept for me if they were only exposed to porn.
But, you can also bet they'll be much more likely to know what the hell a condom is than a kid in an abstinence program, unless you're showing them that bareback stuff. (BTW you started it)

Exposure learns you, end of story.

Yeah, gotcha. An addition to the automotive class that includes guns, if everyone has the option, is the position I'm coming out of this with. This addresses your #2 of the 3rd response, as it did last round.


I concede a defeat.

We both are aware of human nature, but I guess, I'm more concerned with the danger of a syndicate than I am of a single individual. One can defend oneself against an individual after all. And beyond a well-educated population, an armed well-educated population will see to the continuation of a social contract much better than otherwise. Plus I'm a big fan of that one Benjamin Franklin quote.

My thanks for spending the time, enjoy the win.


My thanks to my opponent for waiting on me yet again. But, in other news, yay weekend! I have organized my final round by contention, some response numbers, some topic headings, and a conclusion.

1. If bad laws and court decisions are a possibility regarding the restriction of freedoms, obviously the same is true of expanding freedoms. At best, this is a wash.

2. I never asserted that the "mere possession of firearms" infringes on my rights at all. If we are dealing with U.S. gun policy, then a citizen with a legally obtained and licensed weapon is an appropriate risk to my competing rights (cuz we all said so). However, what I was arguing is that weaponry past these limits (as set by gun control policy) is excessive and overly dangerous, hence the reason that the limits exist in the first place. Those banned weapons are too much of a potential infringement on other rights. I'll actually touch on this again later.

3. The faux paux of adding new arguments in the last round aside, this is a straw man for a single phrase within an argument-- my opponent is making it sound like I think a Pro vote will lead to instant anarchy. Please note that I've made no such claims, implied or otherwise.


So many things to say about this court case and Scalia, so few characters... Coincidentally, Scalia uses the same tactic in this case that my opponent is trying to use to win intent. However, let's take a look at the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens, in which he is joined by 3 other members of the court:

"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right' or an ‘individual right.' Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right...The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution...The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment's text..."

My beef with free access to guns has never been about whether the right is communal or individual. Scalia makes the same assumption from the intent argument as my opponent does. My arguments about the social contract flow right into this, specifically when Stevens refers to Framers' intent: this amendment is not meant to "enshrine the common-law right of self-defense." As I pointed out in R1 & 2, we ask police, military, and other highly trained people to wield weapons that are banned to the public. This is about function of the weapon, not self-defense. I do not need a rocket launcher to properly defend myself. Nor do I need an sub-machine gun to hunt. All those times I refer to vigilante justice and the unpredictability and instability of individual people, what else do you think I would have been talking about? It's bad enough that we allow people access to guns at all. However, as a citizen of the U.S. I am prepared to accept gun control policy as is, with safe guards intact.

Anarchist State: When did I ever characterize a Pro world as anarchist? I hope that my analysis throughout R3 has clarified wherever this misunderstanding was bred. It's quite simple: banned firearms are banned for function. Banned firearms have no use excepting the destruction of life and property, and both are clearly violations of far more fundamental rights. The same can be said of eliminating licensure, waiting periods, and mandatory gun safety courses.

US Ground Invasion:

First of all, it's not my burden to prove this. However, let's examine this issue logically, based on our knowledge of modern warfare and ground wars for the last century or so. What's more likely? That the U.S. will be struck from afar (or by terrorist infiltrators) by its enemies via missiles? Or that the ways of war and terrorist capability will be altered completely, and the U.S. will actually be faced with an invading ground force? My hat's off to any terrorist organization who can assemble millions of troops and the ability to get them here without us noticing first. And if China, Russia, or any other nation large enough to complete the task invades us, then by golly I'll cut off my right arm. It's simply not a geopolitical reality.
1. No response.
2. Well, my opponent concedes that he can't prove what leads to criminals being deterred from crimes. Then, he boldly states that "an armed home owner scares burglars most of all." While I will admit fear is a natural deterrent from action (to say otherwise would be awfully stupid of me), I absolutely refuse to admit that home owners are the top deterrent for burglary. Funnily enough, so did my opponent a sentence before he made that claim.
1. First of all, the "you started it" thing made me chuckle :) Second of all, my opponent just did a really good job of proving why my analogy applies directly to this situation, and supports my stance. The kids in Georgia go syphilis because they were *exposed* to something potentially dangerous, but not taught about its mechanics or safety protocols. Understanding a concept does not come from exposure, just like watching a redtube clip doesn't lead to a thorough understanding of contraceptives. The analogy makes it clear that showing someone something, or even having someone come across something, is not the same as educating someone. Although, I'm sure that the kids who got syphilis are pretty clear on the use of condoms now...little late, though, don't you think?

2. To be honest, I'm a little confused as to what this is applied to in terms of responses to R2. I think that this is about the whole middle ground thing that I attacked towards the end of the case. If it is, then my responses are the same as well. My opponent really hasn't made his stance on gun control clear, so I naturally assumed deregulation. I still think that's his position...I guess? At which point R2 contradicts R1, and his advocacy is a big ole mess.
In conclusion, I suppose the best way to sum up a Con vote would be with regards to function and intent. My opponent was never able to justify an expansion of this right beyond the legal limits in place in the U.S. This is because those limits basically conform with the Court's decision in D.o.C. vs. Heller, no matter how ill-founded Scalia's interpretation of the amendment might be. If, indeed, the amendment blankets self-defense, then the weapons banned now are not necessary to defend oneself. If we believe Stevens and my case, then the likelihood of needing to defend ourselves against a force seeking to revoke the sovereignty of the citizens of our nation, foreign or domestic, is nearly non-existent. Even first world countries with far more strict gun control policies (like Britain) still maintain a democratic government. At the end of the day, there just isn't enough reason to change gun policy as it stands.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 7 years ago
Ah kk.
nonono, I was referring to when I said 'my opponent'. I kept switching audiences, so talking indirectly felt strange.
Thank you for the tips.
You can learn something everyday, so thanks for the time, hopefully I'll do better in the future.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
Holy crap...did they add a bolding feature to the round posting interface finally? I haven't been on here in literally months and months, and I do notice that the site has been improved upon. I think it has a new owner as well? If they did add a bolding feature, I may pee myself a little from joy.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 7 years ago
Advice to Pro: firstly, use sources. In a debate like this, most of your arguments must be backed up with
data. I noticed you did later in the rounds but your entire round 1 seems to be pure speculation. I also
want to point out to both debaters that you can simply bold the headings instead of the punctuated separations
which will save you character space. Also, Pro should not just point to sources without explaining what is
in them. It is unfair to gain extra characters outside of the round.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
I didn't have room for this at the end, but thanks for instigating this debate :) I really hope you stick around DDO. I haven't been on here for a while, but I've always liked chilling here and discussing things with some pretty smart people. Peace out!
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
I'm actually posting this on my iPhone from work. I'll be answering the round tonight, but I wanted to clarify two things. First of all, I'm a woman ;) Takes care of the pronoun issue. Second of all, my reference to you in the third person as "my opponent" is anything but rude. It's a carry-over habit from coaching competitive debate, and it's a sign of respect to both you and our "judges." In a formal debate, you always address your judges, rather than your opponent directly. This is to show respect to your audience and to prevent ad hominem attacks. Most of us hardcore debate nerds do it out of habit =p
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a fantastic and informative debate. Pro's contentions were solidly countered. The new argument brought up about the second amendment I have no idea about, but I think it shouldn't count in any case because it was brought up in the last round, without adequate room to debate it.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting read, especially as I'm from the UK and I'm not so sure that I wouldn't be in favour of a return to gun possession. Con however clearly refutes Pro's every debate. Thank you both for an interesting read.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's C1 was a pre-emptive argument never made by Con. Ground war is a far fetched scenario. Pro also never proves that the convenience store situation is even likely. The "Timmy" story was well-refuted by Con who pointed out that gun training is necessary for people who want to use guns and that it is unsafe to leave guns lying around. Pro put up a brave effort for his first debate but was clearly outmatched.