The Instigator
acortez1
Con (against)
The Contender
KJVPrewrather
Pro (for)

Restricting people's 2nd Amendment Right will reduce American violence

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
KJVPrewrather 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: 5/22/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 392 times Debate No: 114164
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

acortez1

Con

I am against gun control here in America.

A lot of leftists have argued that restricting guns in the country will reduce violence, and that it is purely "common sense". So, can you argue why is it that promoting gun control positively affects and therefore reduces American violence?
KJVPrewrather

Pro

You have interesting timing considering that school children are afraid to go to school. I should specify that I am a moderate centrist, and accross the boasrd prolifer, and so on. I see gun users as a threat to human life. I find it ironic that allegedly prolife conservatives will say "it's a human life" in refererence to abortion, but not gun homicide. Hypocritical maybe? What I don't want to do: Take your guns if you are a mentally healthy 20 plus law abiding citizen. What I do want: People with mental illnesses, addictictions, felony records, and people with restrainining orders to have guns. I know that my right to live outweighs your right to shoot me.
Debate Round No. 1
acortez1

Con

It is quite interesting that you claim to be a moderate centrist, because I am a moderate democrat who, consequently, believes in constitutional civil liberties. The 2nd Amendment, and the ability to posses firearms under legal standings, is a fundamental necessity to any civilized society.

In many instances, governments have turned tyrannical on their own people. Prior to the formation of the Third Reich, Germany had among the strictest gun laws and restrictions in the entire world. Their centralized government believed it would prevent violence, as you so claim. However, when the government was overtaken and Germany was transformed into a socialist state, the people had no means to defend themselves against the impending violence and possibly form a revolution to defend themselves. As a result, millions upon millions were gassed, burned alive, and massacred. Additionally had the 13 colonies not had the proper access to guns and weaponry, they would have never been able to revolt against Great Britain, and at this particular moment in time, you might not be debating me had history gone the other way. Evidently, while the objective is to prevent violence, without proper access to guns, violence is what follows from oppressive governments. I could go on about current contemporary examples such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and a multitude of other countries that are unable to fight back, but assuming you watch the news and keep up with current events, that should speak for itself.

I'd next like to make a point regarding the easy access to guns illegally. If someone is dedicated to causing violence and massacring innocent people, they will attempt to do so regardless of any restrictions we place on them. By accessing a free program downloadable from the internet called Tor, anyone can access the "Deep Web" and purchase a variety of different illegal firearms from the website "Silk Road". If we make purchasing guns illegal, or restrict access to them, if someone really wants a gun, they can do so by going through these illegal channels. However, firearms are not the only things available for purchase on the Silk Road. Other things include RPGs, Grenades, flamethrowers, and chemical weapons. By promoting usage through back-channels, we are possibly encouraging some to purchase even more deadly weapons. Prohibition, the ban of alcohol, did not stop the majority of America from purchasing it illegally, and in fact, actually accelerated the trade. Drug laws currently in place do not stop a significant percentage of America who still purchase and consume them illegally. In fact, we have the biggest drug crisis in history, despite the restrictions imposed by the government. If someone wants to buy guns, they will do so with or without our consent.

Conclusively, restraining a constitutional liberty is harmful to maintaining a civilized and peaceful society for which the people maintain equality with their government.
KJVPrewrather

Pro

I don't care if you think I am this or that, I am here to debate gun control. Focus. You claim that countries turn tyranical when they take everyone's guns away, but I am wiuth Bernie Sanders on guns, and I have 0% desire to abolish guns. I want mentally healthy adult law abiders to own a gun if they want, BUT if they don't fiy yjat criteria, I don't. I don't believe I have gun rights because I have 4 mental illnesses, and one drug addiction in recovery. Do you really think I should have a gun? My first and second rapists both had a history with guns. I don't want YOUR guns, but I want people with my issues to be banned from owning guns. THAT IS ALL, sir!
Debate Round No. 2
acortez1

Con

If you were able to look at my response beyond the first paragraph, I was not making a point to make a statement on what you are or are not. I was making my case on the issue.

And, Secondly, yes, this debate is about gun control and let's proceed on with it.

Your main claim is that people with mental illnesses should not receive guns, and that, my friend, has flaws. The word and term mental illness is being used vaguely.

"Even among the 1 percent of the U.S. population with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, it is rare to find people who are a risk of harm to others or at risk of acting violently. Despite the widespread belief that a person with serious mental illness like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia can be dangerous, only 3 to 4 percent of all the violent acts committed in a given year in the U.S. are committed by people who have been diagnosed with commonly cited mental illness of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or depression." Also, "It"s important to note that those with diagnosed serious mental illness, who are determined by a psychiatrist to be a serious risk of harm to themselves or others, already get admitted to acute or long-term inpatient care and are kept there until they are deemed not dangerous."

This means that 1) it is already difficult from dangerously mentally ill people to obtain a firearm and 2) many who suffer from a mental illness is not at risk of harming themselves or others.

Yes, Nik Cruz, among others were "mentally ill" school shooters that was the cause of the innocent lives of many students. I do not want kids to be afraid of school as I am a high school student myself. But here's the thing: a restriction on the second amendment is not the solution. Here is why:

Take this as an example: New Jersey Highway Law, as far as I am concerned, is 55 mph. Though, drivers, mentally ill or otherwise, have reached 70, 80, or even 100 mph. As a result, "There had been 628 traffic fatalities in New Jersey in 2017 and still rising " the most since 2007 and on pace to finish the year with nearly 100 more deaths than at the recent low point in 2013, when fatalities had dipped to the lowest mark in 91 years" The point is, the establishment of a law is different from the enforcement or enactment of one. Take the most extreme case: banning all guns in America for the mentally ill.

Do you seriously think that you would stop seeing guns in this country? State? City? Neighborhood?
Do you think that there is no way for someone who wanted to commit a crime to commit that crime anyway regardless of the rules? Rules are not followed by those who do not want to follow them, and saying that EVERY mentally ill people does not have the right to self protect is an infringement of our American democracy.

In fact, that statement is an over-generalization, indicating that any person, with any form of mental illness, does not have the right to protect themselves due to the selfish and terrible acts of a few. Those people who have a mental illness and intend to do no harm are now even more vulnerable to those who do not even follow the law, leaving them defenseless.

The answer to a reduced amount of mass shootings in schools is to look at in school security, cyber bullying, and perimeter defenses. All schools should have metal detectors, knowing on sight whether there is a suspicious person at the entrance, veterans who want a job should get hired to work in the hallways with a firearm should be able to protect their students, and kids need to feel safe when taking derivatives of functions and the integral of a quadratic.

Sources:
http://nj1015.com...
https://www.theatlantic.com...
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
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Citizens have rights slaves do not have rights. The right to bear arms that's the right of a citizen as opposed to a serf. Bunk on any fool who supports stripping citizen rights from the American people.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
The fear of school children to go to school has nothing to do with guns and everything to due with the break down of society into social anarchy and chaos. When a American thinks its OK to gun down other Americans -- that's insanity.
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.