We should repeal the second amendment to prevent further gun violence in America.
Team A
Side Score: 9
|
 |
Team B
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
2
points
1
point
The 2nd amendment should be redrafted with the updated version restricting the type of firearm a private citizen can own to a;-revolver type personal protection weapon and a one round at a time rifle for hunting and target shooting purposes. The modified 2nd amendment should make it a criminal offence for any private citizen to own an automatic weapon, of any type. Side: Team A
Have to disagree automatic weapons are legal. http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/ Here is a good read Side: Team A
a one round at a time rifle A one round at a time rifle? It seems like there's a word for that. It's not automatic, because that would be more than one round for each trigger pull. Oh I know! It's called semi-automatic. Since one trigger pull equals one shot on a revolver, I'm not sure why you think that would make a difference. Also, since US homicide rates are way down from the 1800's where everyone only had revolvers and "one round at a time rifles", guns really aren't our problem. Especially considering that most people who own guns aren't murderers. Side: Team B
1
point
1
point
and target shooting purposes. What is the point in shooting targets? Who's going to purchase a firearm specifically for shooting targets? The modified 2nd amendment should make it a criminal offence for any private citizen to own an automatic weapon, of any type. I'm assuming you've never bought a gun before, because you are in no way allowed to walk into a gun store and buy an automatic weapon without a very specific license that only some people have. It's basically illegal to own a fully-auto firearm, my friend. Side: Team B
0
points
A revolver type for personal protection? What if you miss? Would you really put your life in the hands of a slow gun when the enemy is a swift attacker. Furthermore, how does using a one round at a time rifle help anyone. The rifle is just as deadly as automatic weapons only it is way more slow and ineffective. Tough gun restrictions are a restriction on freedom, choice and safety. Side: Team B
Hello M: Nahhh... We should pass comprehensive background checks.. That means every single purchaser of a gun needs to go through a background check.. In MY view, that's a very REASONABLE step. However, the NRA DOESN'T like it, so it'll NEVER get passed.. But, if gun owners want to KEEP their guns, they need to BE reasonable, and they AREN'T.. So.. I dunno WHEN we, as a society, are gonna finally get fed up with mass shootings, but WHEN we do, the 2nd Amendment will ABSOLUTELY be repealed. excon Side: Team A
1
point
Nahhh... We should pass comprehensive background checks.. That means every single purchaser of a gun needs to go through a background check.. All of the systems in place worked, but then failed with several of these shooters. Why? Obama's Promise Program. I mean we can't destroy a kids future. Who cares if he's proven multiple times to be a disturbed psychopath. Side: Team B
1
point
and they AREN'T.. How are gun owners not being reasonable? They just want to keep their guns because they haven't done anything wrong. will ABSOLUTELY be repealed. Of course, because it's the gun's fault for being available, right? Or maybe it's not. Maybe, and this is just a hunch, it's our fault. Maybe we should provide more help for mentally ill people. Maybe we should get more SROs into schools. Guns aren't the problem, because guns aren't sentient. And, like I and many others have said many times in the past, someone who wants a gun will get a gun. Side: Team B
|
3
points
So, getting rid of the legal ability to own a firearm would end gun violence? That's simply not the case. As many others have said, someone who wants a gun will get a gun. And, even if gun violence disappeared entirely, why does it matter? There are plenty of other ways to kill a lot of people without needing the legal ability to own the murder "weapon". For example, look at London. This year so far, 6,694 recorded "gun offenses" occurred in 2017, as opposed to 39,598 "knife offenses". So, if people wanted to kill someone in a country where guns are illegal, what's going to stop them from stabbing the person, or ramming into them with a two-ton truck? Should we just ban everything used by man in the name of "safety"? No, of course not. So instead of trying to abolish the Bill of Rights, try putting more SROs in schools and make it known how useful guns can be in a predicament. Side: Team B
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
An important question is: why did the American government consider it important to allow citizens the right to bear arms? After all guns are dangerous. Can it be concluded that at the time the government was mad? Citizens have a right to possess guns. Entertainment e.g. hunting, shooting ranges, etc. are one thing but there is also the issue of protection. There are people who have callous disregard for the law. What if a thief or murderer breaks into your home. Will you stand by and accept your fate or will you reach for a gun and defend yourself. Survival is a choice and the law should encourage it. Thus, the right to bear arms must be upheld. Side: Team B
|
