The Instigator
capifesto
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
quantum404
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should citizens be allowed to own guns

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  
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: 11/27/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 379 times Debate No: 119181
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

capifesto

Pro

While I'm a proponent of better background and mental health evaluations prior to the ownership of guns, I'm not a proponent of general gun restrictions. I invite anyone that can refrain from name calling and emotional responses to debate me on this topic.

Often I hear that argument that the 2nd amendment is outdated and doesn't apply to our society in 2018. I'd would argue that there were many British in 1775 saying the same thing. The reality is that the American Citizenry should have the right to defend their themselves and their rights if the government does grow tyrannical. I'm often surprised that democrats often discount this so heavily. As a country, We voted in Donald Trump, Obviously an emotional and often irrational leader. Is it such a stretch to think we may not vote in a Despot? I'm not just referring to republicans either- the options for leadership are becoming more and more fringe in their rants and frankly, The disgust of current leadership often leads to worse leadership. The Nazi regime only got a foothold due to a German nation that resented it's current leadership.

What was one of the first agenda items of the Nazi party? To take away their guns. Without a way to fight back, Millions were slaughtered. It is supremely naive to believe that nothing of the sort could ever happen again. Germany was the most educated country in the world at the time.

Concessions- While I believe the mentally ill people that kill are the primary problem, I admit that guns in their hands make them even more dangerous. I don't agree that 99. 99% of gun owners should be punished for the actions of these mentally handicapped, But I would be totally open to background checks that profile for potential mental illness and require further evaluation if there is any chance of mental illness. The challenge with this of course is that mental illnesses can be developed at later stages throughout life and verifying one gun owner, Does not mean that their teenage son, Brother or other relative won't have an illness. However, Simply taking away the gun, Does not cure the problem. We recently had a kid that built a bomb, Placed it in a backpack, Then left it in a school lunch room. Fortunately it smoldered and never went off. He'd made it from home cleaning and fertilization products, Yet it had the capacity to kill a bunch of people had it gone off how he'd planned it. Now- I know what you're thinking- we need to restrict the citizenry's access to backpacks. :) My solution is that we need to have a national database where medical professionals should indicate whether they believe specific patients could potentially be harmful to themselves, But especially to others. If they deem them to be, Guns should be restricted in their hands. I know that opens a can of worms, Such as - should anybody in back country Kentucky be allowed to own a gun if that's the case. :) Just kidding, But it creates the need to draw a line, Which inevitably somebody will argue is unfair or unconstitutional.

The reality is, Guns get the rap for violence. But get rid of guns and then knives will become the culprit, Then pitchforks and so on an so forth will become the new rallying cry. What really needs to happen is quit trimming little branches from the tree and attack the root of the problem, Which is personal responsibility both in terms of raising mentally healthy families and in addressing why people kill in the first place. Most gun violence is actually quite predictable, Not because guns have triggers, But because humans do.
quantum404

Con

It's appears that you are most concerned with a tyrannical government in you argument so I'll address this first.
Authoritarian governments only rises because the majority of the population wants them to. You mentioned Trump in your example for this, And I agree he is very irrational, But the most effective way to stop him is to protect our democratic system, And not to start a civil war. Also, I cannot imagine how semi-auto rifles is going to fight against automatic rifles, Explosives and even armored vehicles. Among many things civilian simply do not have the access to.

"But get rid of guns and then knives will become the culprit, " This don't help your argument as much as you think it do. First, One person with knifes could never kill 58 people (2017 Las Vegas shooting). Second, When it comes to crimes and law enforcement, The police is at a disadvantage when both side have guns. Just the other day, Alabama had a mass shooting where the police shot the wrong person with a gun, And it is nearly impossible to know who is the shooter. This high rate of gun ownership also contribute to higher suicide deaths, Deadlier violence, And police brutality. The US when it comes to non-fatal violence such as theft and burglary is not higher than any other developed country. Than The high number of deaths is only cause by more guns.
Debate Round No. 1
capifesto

Pro

capifesto forfeited this round.
quantum404

Con

quantum404 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
capifesto

Pro

capifesto forfeited this round.
quantum404

Con

quantum404 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by WhiteHawk 3 years ago
WhiteHawk
Grobbit, A well regulated militia is a group of volunteers from the public that are willing to die for their freedom by fighting their government.
Posted by DebxtQueen 3 years ago
DebxtQueen
I accepted the change and posted my argument but it's doesn't show up
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Whitehawk then explain what the part about a well regulated militia is supposed to mean.
Posted by WhiteHawk 3 years ago
WhiteHawk
Grobbit, The words 'the people' means every citizen of the United States. And the proper definition of 'militia' is a military that is raised from the civil population composed of non-professional soldiers.

Capifesto, There are already background checks in place for every legal purchase of a firearm.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
The second amendment does not say anyone can bear arms. It says "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. " Not just anyone is a well-regulated militia. Politicians want you to think that it means anyone can use arms, And the supreme court currently interprets it that way. However, The amendment clearly doesn't say that. Look up the exact text of the amendment, And make your own descision on it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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