The Instigator
ConservativeDebating
Con (against)
The Contender
DanielPrev
Pro (for)

Resolved: The United States should enact an assault weapons ban.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ConservativeDebating has forfeited round #2.
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: 3/29/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 366 times Debate No: 111957
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ConservativeDebating

Con

Introduction:
Hi! With the recent mass shooting in Parkland, gun control has had a rapid spike in media coverage and there have been an increased number of political protests. This makes it a primary issue for political debate. One common argument by people in support of control is the desire for an "Assault Weapons Ban". This is where I draw today's resolution. In fact, I will draw it specifically from the MarchForOurLives website. The full text of the proposition can be found as point #1 here [1]. While the other two are also common pro- gun control positions, this debate will focus EXCLUSIVELY on the idea of assault weapons ban.
Debating begins in round one, there's a very loose structure. So, with that out the way, good luck and I'll begin to present my arguments.

1. The Second 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."
An assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional.
No, the second amendment does not exclusively give the right to the militia. The government does not need to give itself the right to own arms. Historically, the milita was the entire people (well, all citizens at that time). The Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens have the right. This is why the amendment includes the right of the people phrase ("the right of the people to ..."). Otherwise, this could've been removed.
No, the second amendment is not outdated. Historically, private citizens were granted the right to arms equal with that of the military. Also, the founders could never have predicted FaceBook or Twitter, back then just pen and paper was used, however our right to freedom of speech extends still to these previously unimaginable platforms.
Yes, the second amendment is still important. The first step of any tyranical regime is to remove the right to bear arms. Historically, the has happened in Nazi Germany, but it is also visible in a place such as North Korea. The amendment is essentially to protect not only against invading threats, but a tyranical government at home.
It would be unconstitutional. The weapons which are usually encapsulated in the loosley defined term "assault weapons" are among the most commonly used for self-defense purposes by law-abiding citizens. While the right is quite obviously not unlimited, federal circuit courts have rules that the usage of the weapon can be a determinate in its protective status under the amendment. This amicus brief provides the nitty gritty details [2].
Self defense is an important private right that should not be understated.

2. Definitions:
Generally, no one provides a definition as to what is being banned, including this petition from the MarchForOurLives website. Most of the time, people just determine based on how scary looking the weapon is. For obvious reasons, this is a bad metric. For PRO's arguments to be consistent and since they would be proposing this ban that doesn't currently exist, it is their burden to provide a rigid, objective definition of what constitutes an assault rifle.

3. Unenforceable:
Firstly, try taking guns away from southern-hearted people that don't want to give them up. Good luck.
Secondly, registry would be neccessary and fail. Currently, there is, generally speaking, no reigstry which ties firearm owning citizens to firearms. To take guns from everyone, you first need to know who has them and how many they have. Currently, the government has no idea of this fact.
Thirdly, simply too numerous. There are over 300 million guns in the United States. For refernece, Australia's buyback program confiscated around 650,000 and still left over a quarter million from people who refused to turn them in. The problem would not disappear for an extremely long time, if ever, even if the incoming legal supply would be substnatially restricted.
Fourth, at the end of the day, it only risks hurts the law abiding owners. Of course, some owners would in fact turn in their guns. I'd argue this number is very small. However, zero criminals would turn in their guns. The buyback would only risk putting the most intense law abiding citizens at a greater risk.

4. Handguns:
Handguns account for a way larger percentage of gun homicides than assault weapons. Even if the instances used of assault weapons had higher numbers of deaths per instance (which I'm not sure is actually true) it doesn't make sense to exclude the overwhelming majority of deaths from the ban. It seems that passing a ban would be the perfect slippery slope to then justify handgun bans.

5. Australia:
I don't quite understand why gun control advocates always cite Australia's program, as it was a complete failure and seems to often lean in the negative direction. The program was a massive failure, as hundreads of thousands simply ignored the direction. It also experienced a lesser drop rate than in the U.S. during the same period of time. Australia doesn't have the same "gun control" as the United States anyway, which would suggest the result could be drastically skewed more negative [3].

I love debating, let's make this an interesting and good one! Honestly, I'd like to be convinced to the best side if your arguments are better.

Citations:
[1] https://marchforourlives.com...
[2] http://www.scotusblog.com...
[3] https://bearingarms.com...
DanielPrev

Pro

Introduction:

Hello ConservativeDebating, and thank you for allowing me to have the opportunity to debate this controversial topic with you. I hope to make this a fun debate as well! Good luck!

My usual structure for debates is to first reply to your arguments, and then I will state mine. Also, whenever CAPS is used, I am not being rude or disrespectful, but I am just drawing a point of attention to points being made.

Reply to 1. The Second Amendment:

The straight up fact is a matter of, whether a subject like this is constitutional or not is irrelevant to the safety of citizens TODAY.

There was an instance where an amendment was repealed, and this was the 18th Amendment. The 18th Amendment suggested that Prohibition on Alcohol shall be imposed in 1919. This Amendment was later overruled by the 21st Amendment in 1933. [1]

The Second Amendment was written in 1791 [2], just fifteen years after the United States of America officially became a country, and when the Government couldn’t be trusted just yet. The Second Amendment was made to protect citizens, not from each other, but from the Government. Now we are in the year of 2018, 242 years after the United States of America became a country. If citizens are not able to trust their Government YET, then they never will. How could one live in a country where their own Government cannot be trusted (let alone in 2018)? Also, what do you pay your police force for? Is their job not to serve and protect their citizens? If you have police, what is the point of assault weapons?

Reply to 3: Unenforceable:

I have to agree with you that it will be hard to get guns out of the hands of everyone, but I know for sure that it isn’t impossible. If the Government could just order all officers from every jurisdiction to invade and investigate ALL homes, I am sure that a lot of the guns would be seized (obviously not all, but a great amount).

The NRA should also refund all citizens of their seized weapons, and stop being the greedy pigs that they are. You say that the most intense law-abiding citizens will be at greater risk, and I would have to disagree. Just because you do not have a gun does not mean that calling 911 is not an option, and police officers will be there in minutes at the most (in real emergencies of course). In fact, attempting to use a weapon during, let’s say a home invasion, will put you at a greater risk. Attempting to apprehend the suspect(s) without help could cause you to lose a firefight, when you could have just called the police and hid.


Reply to 4: Handguns:

Why not ban them both?

Reply to 5: Australia:

Australia was not a failure. It was a complete success. Australia has never had a mass shooting since 1996. Enough said. [3]

My Argument:

My main point is that banning gun must have a positive impact. Take a look at countries such as Australia (as mentioned above), Canada, and England. When is the last time you have heard of a mass shooting in any of these countries? I bet you have to think and dig deep into your knowledge to find an answer for this question.

Some stubborn Americans do not care for the safety of others, but they only care about themselves. The argument is always being said: “Guns don’t kill people, people do”. Well if the killer does not have a gun to pull the trigger, will anyone have to die?

You cannot persuade me into believing that banning guns won’t have a positive impact on the safety of America. The Government has thought of ways to protect their citizens without banning guns, and I do not see any progress being made. People are still dying at the hands of a trigger. Every. Single. Day.

Why doesn’t anyone do the logical thing and try to make a change?

America has become the laughingstock of the World…

Also sorry for the late response, had quite a bit of work to do...


References:
[1]: https://www.britannica.com...
[2] https://www.history.com...
[3]https://www.usatoday.com...




Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 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.