The Instigator
Herpshire
Pro (for)
The Contender
John_Eaton
Con (against)

The right to bear firearms is no longer beneficial to the safety of the US citizen. (2nd amendment)

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
John_Eaton 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: 3/27/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 111759
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Herpshire

Pro

Proposing the following:

In the wake of the last few mass shootings in the United States, I have heard the arguements of both sides of the isle when it comes to the issue of gun control. My issue has arisen from hearing the following:

The 2nd amendment to the Constitution is in severe danger. And the moment that the right of the people to own firearms is trampled or limited in any way, it would not only be an unconstitutional action but it would expose this nation to the dangers of becoming a dictatorship. That the people's right to own firearms and the ability to maintain a well regulated militia is this nations best defence against such an outcome.

I maintain that this is wrong. The 2nd amendment was written in the 18th century. In the age of the musket and the cannon. While it was beneficial to the American citizen of the time to own a firearm at the times, given the nature of life at that century and indeed until the very final years of the first world war, in today's world, owning a firearm is more harmful in that it causes any individual to commit a crime much greater in a moment of anger than he could without one.
That it provides no gaurantees that a people could stand up against tyranny if every man owned an assault rifle.
As a veteran I know this, no weapon purchasable by a civilian can stand the might of the US military. That no matter how many bullets you shoot at a jet fighter, or a tank, or a striker, it will destroy you unscathed.

And furthermore: many nations in this world can successfully claim democracy is achieved without the right to own firearms. Japan, Belgium, south Korea, turkey, Germany, and so many more nations mentionable have never needed such measures in this modern age to ensure freedom. And many revolutions have successfully dictatorship without a single shot fired by the citizen.

Challenge me.
John_Eaton

Con

Ok so I would like to take this moment to say you're an idiot. I am going to use this round to set out my points.

1-This 2nd Amendment repeal is ironically unconstitutional and illegal as 2/3 out of all the states need to agree to the change which will never happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

2-This change would not 'stop gun violence' it actually harms them more as school shooters don't care what the law says they'd do it anyway wouldn't they?

3-States with the lowest gun ownership rate have a higher murder rate. For example, the US state of Delaware with 5.2% of the population owning a gun had a gun murder rate of 5.5 per every 100,000 in 2015 while Alaska with a gun ownership of 61.7% had a gun murder rate of 5.3 per 100,000 in the same time period.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Herpshire

Pro

I would like to use this moment to say thank you for your "kind" name calling.

1- your point is invalid. I did not question the process by which it might be appealed or the amount of support it has. The very point of this forum is to build support and influence ideas. Therefore if there is a legal way, which there is, as you pointed out, like minded people should try to achieve this goal.

2- The law has already forbidden school shootings. The purpose of my argument is to point out that IF the thing so horrible in the minds of people like you happened, in this case, the ban of all firearms sale in the US and harsh punishments for the possession of one, given enough time the guns remaining in the hands of criminals will also be confiscated.
As the nature of crime is, it is self destructive and a criminal and his gun will eventually be caught.

3- there is a difference of 0.2 in the two statistics. That's incremental. And may I add, there is no data gathered whatsoever that shows the gun murder rate per every 100,000 as there is no state in the US that has currently disallowed the possession of firearms.

To any readers viewing this debate, I'd like to turn your attention to this very interesting article, listing the amount of gun deaths per country. Notice a trend among the lowest? All nations with very restrictive firearm laws. Notice anything else? 7 of the 9 lowest death rates by firearm in the world are nations that are considered to be extremely democratic.
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
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ray2 3 years ago
Ray2
http://www.debate.org...

BAN GUNS
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@backwardseden However gun ownership is increasing while crime is decreasing so how can one assume that more guns makes people less safe when overall crime and gun homicide lowered? I am pretty sure there is no correlation it is just a coincidence. Gun owners being more likely to hurt themselves with their own gun well sorry but can you please give me the source I really hate to be the guy who asks for citations for everything but I just haven't seen those statistics. About justifiable homicides being rare yes that is true but that doesn't account for all guns used for self defense not all self defense shootings end in the death of a criminal only less than 1% do. You can't claim that because the amount of justififable homicides are low self defense with guns are rare. Gun purchasers being more likely to be hurt by their own guns. I assume you mean that this happens accidentally. This can always be fixed with better gun safety training. As you are saying with 3D printed guns how can a government regulate criminals from printing their own guns restricting guns and out right banning them still won't stop criminals from the black market or 3D printing. But i'll just give you the point on this one because I can't find the exact data to back my claims and this argument isn't exactly ours.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@backwardseden However gun ownership is increasing while crime is decreasing so how can one assume that more guns makes people less safe when overall crime and gun homicide lowered? I am pretty sure there is no correlation it is just a coincidence. Gun owners being more likely to hurt themselves with their own gun well sorry but can you please give me the source I really hate to be the guy who asks for citations for everything but I just haven't seen those statistics. About justifiable homicides being rare yes that is true but that doesn't account for all guns used for self defense not all self defense shootings end in the death of a criminal only less than 1% do. You can't claim that because the amount of justififable homicides are low self defense with guns are rare. Gun purchasers being more likely to be hurt by their own guns. I assume you mean that this happens accidentally. This can always be fixed with better gun safety training. As you are saying with 3D printed guns how can a government regulate criminals from printing their own guns restricting guns and out right banning them still won't stop criminals from the black market or 3D printing. But i'll just give you the point on this one because I can't find the exact data to back my claims and this argument isn't exactly ours.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
Saying we don't need guns because of police is like saying we don't need first aid kits because of doctors. I would rather heal a cut with a bandage than go to a nurse for it if I have a first aid kit.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@BiasedHuman
Last year the Violence Policy Center found that a gun owner is 32 times more likely to use their weapon in criminal homicide rather than in self-defense. Usually the first reason a gun advocate says there is a need to own guns is the self-protection myth. Now that that myth has been debunked and it has been proven that justifiable homicides are rare, we must move past the old self-defense narrative and think with clearer heads when discussing gun ownership.
* Journal of American Medicine 6/30/16
"And, as statistics show, the more guns that are purchased, the less safe we all are. Especially gun purchasers, who are 80% more likely to be wounded by their own gun than by anyone else"s."
Continuing...
"Especially when 3D printers are capable of creating lethal guns in just minutes, without a waiting period or even the involvement of a gun manufacturer."
* The Hollywood Reporter 8/18/16
" The NRA has convinced people that a home with a gun is safer than one without a gun. That is a lie. Not even close, and the odds are about 8-to-1 that if someone does get hurt with that gun, it's not going to be a bad guy. It's going to be the owner or a friend or family member. The NRA has all the politicians scared and doesn't "let" Congress research gun violence anymore, but fortunately scientists do it anyway, and these are the facts." (Hopefully kids on Saturday have made the most corrupt company in history, namely the NRA, shine its light)
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
How about the people who defend their lives with guns I'd say it would be beneficial to them.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
How about the people who defend their lives with guns I'd say it would be beneficial to them.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Furthermore to add to Herpshire's absolute 100% correctness, if the second amendment is to survive, it is going to have to be rewritten, much to the chagrins of perhaps the most corruptible company that his country has ever seen, namely the NRA, and soon, very soon, easily within the next 5 years or less, and too bad if idiot pro gunners don't like it to finally be on the back slab of the chopping block, darn and boo hoo, oh why oh why you ask? Simple. Technology will easily surpass what today's guns are. Hey people are building 3D printer guns in their basements NOW. And there's 0 laws from preventing them from doing as such. And what is any law enforcement going to do? Go around and knock on EVERY door making sure EVERYBODY is behaving themselves before they nuke an entire city block? Thankfully the kids are taking what they can do, and if the worst president of all time, namely Trump doesn't do something proper namely what the kids want which is what common sense is, hopefully the kids will rightly take the law for common sense into their hands and get rid of the NRA and the idiotic worthless second amendment that both does nobody any good.
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.