#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is allwoing law abiding citizens to own automatic firearms a bad idea?
Title explains issue for debate
yes
Side Score: 45
|
 |
no
Side Score: 60
|
|
I agree its not a bad idea; because its a freaking terrible one. All the evidence says that if you are in possession of a firearm you are more likely to get shot. More likely. Anyone who wants to justify owning an automatic weapon should pop over to Australia and see how well we get on without them. No-one has popped a cap anywhere around me or mine ever. Thats right ever, no shootings to speak of and no armed robberies of my friends or family, ever. Though once the cat, or gat in this case, is out of the bag I am not sure you can put it away. Hard to see how the states could get all those guns back, so good luck champs. Side: yes
1
point
"All the evidence says that if you are in possession of a firearm you are more likely to get shot. More likely." Nope. There have been hundreds of thousands of cases in which people have defended themselves or others with guns. Look up this link below. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. And comparing Australia with the United States is like comparing apples and oranges. The Australian government is a lot different than the one in the United States. You can't conclusively say that guns are the main factor. Side: No
>< 1. You linked a survey. We all know gun advocates think they're Dirty Harry, find some police stats... you won't be able to. 2. The survey you linked is not about automatic firearms. Even if you are dirty Harry, it only takes one bullet to stop an intruder, not 100. As for comparisons, you can compare Australia becaue they have a similar socio-political make-up, which is the primary contributor to crime. Other countries with a similar socio-political make-up include the Scandinavian countries, Canada, England, and France - all of which show similar results with greater gun control laws. Now, you can argue the legitimacy of a handgun, hunting rifle, etc, and I would say it should be a local issue in each case (ie South Central Chicago might want different laws than rural Alabama). What you cannot do is say that having a oozi is self-protection. It is in the best case overkill, in the worst case a criminal who just has not been caught yet. Side: yes
1
point
Ok, for the sake of discussion, lets throw out the survey. Why is it so hard to believe being armed and knowing how to use your weapons effectively will make you safer? The reason you can't compare the United States and Australia on the subject of guns is because it won't produce clean results. In order to accurately compare or test a variable, the variable must be the only thing that changes. The United States and Australia have different laws and different governments, so it's impossible to derive a conclusive result about one variable. Furthermore, the socio-political makeup is different in the United States. Countries like Australia, Canada, England, and France all have a lot more socialism for instance. Part of my argument for this is common sense. If a criminal is lawless enough to use a weapon for malicious purposes, will he really care about the legality of his weapons? There's always a black market to turn to almost anywhere in the world. Also, guns aren't the only way violence can be carried out. If people really want to hurt other people, they'll find a way to do it. I agree with you that gun laws should be a local issue. In some cases, an automatic weapon is more effective than a semi auto for self defense (such as when several intruders break into a home at once, or when someone breaks in with armor). I know these cases are very rare, but they do happen occasionally. And when they do, an oozi is in fact a sensible choice. That's why the military uses automatic M-16s. Side: No
A lot of things are common sense. The numbers show that one who owns a gun is far more likely to accidently shoot himself, or have a child who figures out a way to shoot themself, then to ever encounter an intruder. Home intrusions where the owner is home are less common than accidental shootings, that's a fact. I have no problem with guns, in fact I like them. I live though 2 blocks from the LV strip, and I would "feel" safer knowing it was hard for my neighbors to get their hands on a gun, than I would with one of my own. Very few gun control advocates advocate total gun control, that is a strawman the NRA made up. Most gun control advocates simply want local municipalities to be allowed to look at the numbers and say "okay, you can have a handgun but not an automatic" in such and such a community, "you can carry whatever you want in this community" or if you're in the middle of the ghetto, maybe you can only own a hunting rifle. I see nothing wrong with this. Side: yes
1
point
The numbers show that one who owns a gun is far more likely to accidentally shoot himself, or have a child who figures out a way to shoot themself, then to ever encounter an intruder. Home intrusions where the owner is home are less common than accidental shootings, that's a fact. I believe you will find, however, that the vast majority of accidental shootings are non-lethal. Intruders who break into an occupied home on the other hand, are likely to know the house is occupied, and come prepared with a weapon and have a conscious will to do damage. Very few gun control advocates advocate total gun control, that is a strawman the NRA made up. I'm actually a member of the NRA, and I have yet to hear from them that the feds will completely ban all guns. What they will do however, is take smaller steps on a slippery slope. Things like bigger taxes on ammunition, a higher charge to obtain certain permits, bans on certain accessories, and even misleading legislation such as the "assault rifle" ban that would include many common hunting rifles. Most gun control advocates simply want local municipalities to be allowed to look at the numbers and say "okay, you can have a handgun but not an automatic" in such and such a community, "you can carry whatever you want in this community" or if you're in the middle of the ghetto, maybe you can only own a hunting rifle. I see nothing wrong with this. Neither do I. But the problem is that it is a slippery slope. The general trend in the past has been to legislate with continually more restrictive laws, and they seldom get repealed. This is what has gun enthusiasts upset. Trivial laws aren't so trivial when they continue to build up. And futhermore, who gets to decide what is reasonable? You may end up with a county of gun control extremeists who won't let you have anything, or you may have one that lets people have RPGs. Side: No
It's a terrible idea. I mean seriously why would a regular person ever need a automatic firearm. I'm from Sweden and the only civilians allowed to own weapons are hunters and even they have a relatively hard time getting a weapon. A country can function just fine without regular people owning weapons. Side: yes
Law abiding citizens is based on how they've acted SO FAR! Just because they have been law abiding for the time they have doesn't mean they always will be. Also, hunting accidents are common enough, if automatic weapons were in use, and a misfire or the like happened the effect could be much more extreme. Law abiding does not mean entirely responsible. Side: yes
1
point
Law abiding citizens is based on how they've acted SO FAR! Just because they have been law abiding for the time they have doesn't mean they always will be. Under that logic, we shouldn't allow anyone to have guns since they may one day snap and go on a shooting rampage. In fact, we really shouldn't even allow people to have cars since they may snap and mow down pedestrians, or ram a school bus. Come to think of it, we might as well just lock everyone up in padded cells so that no one can get hurt ever. Also, hunting accidents are common enough, if automatic weapons were in use, and a misfire or the like happened the effect could be much more extreme. Actually hunting accidents are very rare, and when they do happen, it is usually due to the elements, not a misfire. Furthermore, hunting with automatic weapons is illegal, unnecessary, and not the topic of this particular debate. There are many gun restrictions specific to hunting that don't apply for other types of shooting. Law abiding does not mean entirely responsible. It is impossible to ever be able to guage how responsible someone is 100%, and it will always be fraught with bias. That doesn't mean we should eliminate a right because there have been a few wing nuts out there. Side: No
All citizens have been law abiding till the point where they break the rules - and even then, if they aren't caught they are still regarded as law abiding. "Law abiding citizens" means nothing as all wicked people have been a "decent citizen" (as noted by law) at some point prior to their crime(s). On the other hand, I do wish I could have a gun under my dress tucked into my stocking that I can whip out whenever a drunken ass approaches me. We can't have it both ways though can we? We don't know a bad man till he has given us a reason to think/know he is bad. For all you know, your neighbour could be a murderer/rapist, but he just hasn't been caught yet which means that at this moment he is considered by law to be a law abiding citizen, who, in the eyes of the people who picked no in this argument, is permitted to own a firearm. Fair? Nope. Side: yes
1
point
|
I dont think that is a bad idea. With the increase in crimes and security risks, individuals needs to protect themselves from harm. However i do think that the criminal history of the recepients should be examined to make sure they have a clean criminal background, that they are in good mental health and that they should be monitored on a regular basis. Side: No
2
points
1
point
We already trust law abiding citizens to own guns that will fire a bullet with every trigger pull. Why would it make that much of a difference if the gun fired continuous bullets? It only takes one bullet to kill, and currently, almost no one is using them in that fashion. The ones who do are getting them illegally, so selling automatic weapons legally wouldn't matter to them because they would get it from the black market anyways, not a sporting goods store or gun shop. Side: No
1
point
Using a gun could screw up someone's mind. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, remember? But you are right, a gun is just a tool. It is not dangerous, as long as the people holding it don't have evil intentions. And so making automatic weapons legal will decrease the amount people who have evil intentions and wish to have automatic weapons how? Side: yes
1
point
Cars have the power to kill people. In fact, a lot more cars kill people than guns do. Should we ban cars too? What about kitchen knives? Or tire irons? Under you're premise, having a deadly tool can alter someone's mind, so we should get rid of them since they can kill people. And for your second point, most people who want guns for evil intentions don't buy them from a gun shop. They buy them "under the table" so to speak. The legality of weapons doesn't matter to a criminal. If they really want an automatic weapon, they'll find a way to get one. It makes no sense to bar them from our law abiding citizens. Side: No
1
point
If criminals have more firepower than the law abiding citizen, it becomes a problem because it puts the potential victim at a disadvantage. There are many instances in which an automatic weapon would be more effective against multiple targets than a semi auto. Gang break-ins for instance. Occasionally in gang related intrusions, several intruders may break in at a time. If they are grouped together, which they usually are, a full auto will take care of them quite nicely. Side: No
What you are doing is making an (unreasonable, violent) solution to a problem that may be prevented from happening in the first place through other, better, nonviolent manners. You could have an alarm system for your house, you could have neighborhood watch-people, you could have a guard dog, you could help fund local school systems that will keep teens out of crime while simultaneously giving them an education. Instead of promoting a radical, deadly solution to these kinds of problems, try to use some common sense. You don't need to fight fire with fire. Sometimes water will do just fine. Side: yes
1
point
Alarms systems don't always run a criminal out of your house, and it often takes several minutes for police to respond. Neighborhood watches and school systems are ineffective in a similar fashion. They reduce the likelihood of a break in, but they don't help much once it's already happening. When it does happen and someone gets into your home with hostile intentions, the safest thing to do is to kill them. Preferably with a weapon effective for the task. Side: No
First of all, denying individuals the access to firearms is not a good idea because they will still find illegal ways to posess weapons and this will be worst because in the legal format of owing weapons, the government can keep a registry of firearm owners and monitor them but in the illegal way, the government has no idea who owns firearms and this can cause a threat to society. Secondly, you cant deny anyone access to firearm because the 2nd ammendment itself does not prohibit giving firearms to civilians. If your standpoint of argument is the fact that firearms increases the level of criminality of civilians, then that argument in itself is a constitutional violation of the civilian rights based on the constitution on which this country was built. Thirdly, guns are needed for protection in areas that have a high crime rate. A perfect example is a young father who i personally knew, and who was also a business man. He was robbed in front of his wife and children and then shot in the head and left to die. Take that for an example and imagine if he had access to a gun for his and his family protection, what would have happened. Side: No
Your entire argument is irrelevant. Your first point merely echoes my point about illegal/illicit drugs (why not legalize meth, crack, cocaine, and everything else because then the government can keep a registry of drug owners and monitor them but in the illegal way the government has no idea who owns drugs and this can cause a threat to society). See, you just substituted firearms for drugs. Secondly and most importantly, the debate is about automatic firearms. Tell me where I ever wanted to take away your "God-given" second amendment (By the way, just to point out, who cares if it's in the Constitution. The Constitution is a man made document, and as such is fallible. That's why there are amendments like the second, and why the Negro is no longer 3/5 a person, and 18 year olds, women, and minorities can vote). "A perfect example is a young father who i personally knew, and who was also a business man. He was robbed in front of his wife and children and then shot in the head and left to die. Take that for an example and imagine if he had access to a gun for his and his family protection, what would have happened." An automatic weapon would have probably been more dangerous in this situation, especially since the criminal would have had a higher probability of owning an automatic weapon as well. Side: yes
First of all, meth and cocaine cannot be used in a case of self defense. The whole purpose of legalizing firearms is the fact that it can be used for the purpose of self defence when a person's life is in danger. No one has the right to own these types of substances because by law, they are illegal. Gun is an equipment and not a substance. Meth and cocaine are substances. What are the benefits of owning drugs in terms of saving your lives? Can you use it to defend yourself? Let me ask you this question, if you dont care about the constitution because it is man made then how come you care about the illegality of crack or meth? Didnt man- made laws made those substances illegal? The ammendments were made to the constitution because as we approached a liberal era, the people gained more rights. The whole purpose of the ammendments are to protect the people from the power of the government when used in an unfair manner. You should be thankful that the constitutional gave minorites and the women the right to vote. The constitution never prohibited in the whole, that right was added on to it to widen the rights of the people. If the father had access to a weapon, then his life would have been saved. What can be more dangerous than a father losing his life? How much dangerous can it get? Side: No
First of all, meth and cocaine cannot be used in a case of self defense. The whole purpose of legalizing firearms is the fact that it can be used for the purpose of self defence when a person's life is in danger. No one has the right to own these types of substances because by law, they are illegal. Gun is an equipment and not a substance. Meth and cocaine are substances. What are the benefits of owning drugs in terms of saving your lives? Can you use it to defend yourself? Let me ask you this question, if you dont care about the constitution because it is man made then how come you care about the illegality of crack or meth? Didnt man- made laws made those substances illegal? The ammendments were made to the constitution because as we approached a liberal era, the people gained more rights. The whole purpose of the ammendments are to protect the people from the power of the government when used in an unfair manner. You should be thankful that the constitutional gave minorites and the women the right to vote. The constitution never prohibited in the whole, that right was added on to it to widen the rights of the people. If the father had access to a weapon, then his life would have been saved. What can be more dangerous than a father losing his life? How much dangerous can it get? Side: No
In reference to the Constitution, it is interesting how you fail to mention the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which are directly amending the Constitution, not just adding things. Also, I would like to refer to you to George Carlin in reference to rights. If something is a "right," how is it possible that rights change with time? Either it is a right, or it is not; it is not subject to the whims of the people, politicians, or populations. I believe in your right to self-defense. I don't believe in your "right" to an automatic weapon (especially when a normal, non-automatic gun would suffice). "What can be more dangerous than a father losing his life? How much dangerous can it get?" Perhaps the family gets hit in the crossfire. Or a witness. Or anyone else besides the assailant and victim. Side: yes
The 13th, 14th and 15th ammendment was made to the constitution to widen the rights of the people because governments could infringe upon the rights of the people. It is because of the constitution that we are protected in our homes or else the government could barge in and carry out unreasonable searches and seizures and then use that evidence to deprive us of life, liberty and property. Many people misinterpets the meaning of 'rights.' It is not a right itself that changes overtime, it is we the people who give governments the power to take a right away from us because according to Howard Zinn, the government gets it power from the people and power and rights come from the people, not the government. Do you think the constitution was created by a government? Whether you believe in the right to firearm or not is what your opinion is but majority of the population would agree that law abiding citizens have a right to firearms which is why the constitution permitting the use of firearms was never challenged. If you are saying that we should not give firearms to people because other people might get killed, then what you are implying is that we should take away the means from a person to protect themselves and let them die when we can provide them with the equipment that can save their lives. And by the way, majority of the crimes committed are committed by illegal gun posession and not legal gun posession. The 13th, 14th, and 15th ammendments were rights bestowed upon the people in the constituion and not changes made to the constitution. Side: No
"rights bestowed upon the people" By whom? "changes made to the constitution." Why is a negro no longer 3/5 a person, then? That was in the Constitution. You are overlooking the basic, transient, flexible nature of the Constitution. Also, you are overlooking the ENTIRE premise of the debate: automatic weapons. Side: yes
If you read the original constitution, you would see that it did not stated "blacks are 3/5 of a person." What it sates is "3/5 of all other persons" because that portion of the constitution was referring to the population of the blacks. And also automatic weapons has no bearing on an argument prohibiting the use of civilians for self defence. Side: No
It said that only 3/5 of the black population counted in representation for states, thus effectively making a black person worth 3/5. Regardless, this section was directly changed by the 14th Amendment. I don't understand why you are arguing whether or not the Constitution has been changed. I'm saying automatic weapons are entirely superfluous if one wishes to protect him or herself. A small arm, or non-automatic weapon would suffice just fine. Side: yes
You said it yourself. 3/5 of the black population. Thus, there is a difference between a black person or any type of person being the value of 3/5 of a person and 3/5 of a population. But anyway back to the argument. I brought up the fact that the right to a firearm is within the constitution. You argued that the constitution is infallible or was changed. So you are the one that raised the effectiveness of the constitution, not me. If a person chooses to have an automatic firearm or not, that is his decision, as long as he stays within the confine of the law because as a civilian, he has certain rights that the state cannot rid him of and the claim that owning a firearm is a potential for further criminality in a given population is a broad generalization in an argument without proper proof to prove so. Furthermore, if you are claiming that possession of gun leads to further criminality then i am surprised that your perception of small non automatic guns is different because gun in the whole can be a danger depending on how and where you use it. Your solution to a problem will have no effect on the problem at present if that is what you are proposing for a change. Side: No
"3/5 of the black population. Thus, there is a difference between a black person or any type of person being the value of 3/5 of a person and 3/5 of a population" I don't think you understand math. "You argued that the constitution is infallible or was changed" Which one? It can't be both. I'm fairly certain I argued the Constitution has been changed, and your refusal to accept a basic understanding of history does not change history. "If a person chooses to have an automatic firearm or not, that is his decision, as long as he stays within the confine of the law because as a civilian, he has certain rights that the state cannot rid him of" Speaking of broad generalizations... Side: yes
I dont think you understand english enough to understand the difference between the words "person" as you claimed earlier and the term "population." Your argument is based on a phrase of the constitution which you yourself is not sure what the correct meaning of that phrase is. If you were smart enough you would figure that when i was referring to "certain rights" i was referring to the 2nd ammendment. You should probably check up the meaning of "broad generalizations" as well because it seems you have an issue in understanding the basics of english. Side: No
The Constitution was not taking a census, you do realize. They were saying that 3/5 of "all other persons" (i.e. slaves and other racial minorities) counted toward representation. Thus, the 14th Amendment changed this and made every person count toward representation. Effectively, it legitmized the position of former slaves as full citizens, whereas before they were clearly not. " If you were smart enough you would figure that when i was referring to "certain rights" i was referring to the 2nd ammendment." And what I'm saying is these rights are not absolute. You do not get to own whatever you want whenever you want. You don't get to automatically own incredibly dangerous weapons. Or else why couldn't a citizen own a nuclear warhead, or why are there regulations on gun ownership like licensing? Side: yes
Now that you have taken a proper approach towards your argument, i do agree with you that they were referring to as blacks and other minorities including the native indians as well as "3/5 of all other persons" because the presence of the British was still influencing America at that point and the rise of Civil Rights Movements caused the blacks to be free from slavery through rebellion against the Dictators. However, at that point, the constitution was never reviewed and was recently created by the wealthy upper class white members of society who thought that their actions were wise. Further review of the constitution lead to the institution of the 14th ammendment and due process clause. But as it is, the constitution has been reviewed for years and found to be appropiately fair not only by legislators but by several courts and human rights committee including the U.S Supreme Court. If you recalled in my argument, i did not mention the term "broad rights," instead i mentioned the term "certain rights." This certain right was referring to the the use of applicable firearms for self defence and automatic firearms were ruled to be liable for self defence. So, certain rights would extend to the use of automatic firearms for the use of self defence by civilians. And you said it yourself, the people's actions are limited by the government through the process of licensing, thus, through this process, the government gets to monitor the use of firearms by the civilian population. Side: No
Your argument is based on your opinion. I dont need to hear your opinions. I need to hear your proof. You said that the people's use of firearm is restricted, so if that truly is the case, then point to specific clause, stating so in any parts of the constitution or the bill of rights, since that is the ultimate source of rights. Side: No
" that is the ultimate source of rights." And as we discussed, it is not really the Constitution that is the "source of rights." Rights may not be decided on the whim of a document or a people, otherwise then they're not rights, they're privileges. Therefore, I only need prove that the "rights" given to us by the Constitution have ever been limited by actions from the government, to extend that as well to the 2nd Amendment. Take free speech, which has often times been limited by the government (e.g. you cannot yell "fire" when there is in fact no fire) when it is deemed that said right may be dangerous for other civilians. Similarly, the 2nd Amendment may be, and should be, limited in scope by restricting the general population from owning automatic firearms. Actually one is more likely to be involved in a homicide if one owns a gun, among a myriad of other statistics (see link). Additionally, countries with more restrictive gun control laws tend to have a higher homicide rate. Making guns more available, as well as increasing the firepower and killing power of a single weapon would dramatically increase one's susceptibility to violent crime via guns. Side: yes
The constitution is mot merely privileges, it is a source of rights. Point out one phrase in the constitution that mentions the terms "privileges." However you will find many of the terms listed as being "rights." You claim that rights have not been decided merely on the basis of a document but bear in mind rights were decided by the U.S Supreme Court on the every document that we should refer as being the constitution of the United States. The rights guaranteed in the constitution cannot be limited unless one trespasses the limits of these constitutional rights which are no longer protected by the government. Yelling fire in a crowd when there is no fire is not free speech as you claim because according to the law, it produces a bad result definitely, since it can cause panic and can even cause injury because people might try to escape in panic. In some instances, yelling fire in a crowd when there is no fire in a building can cause people to block up the exit leading to a depletion of oxyen which can result in people dying. Therefore, this is not a right as you claim. This is an act of crime that can result in severe danger or death to others. If i recall you stated in your argument that "the 2nd Amendment MAY be, and SHOULD be." The words "may" and "should" illustrates that not even you yourself is certain in whether your perception of this issue is actually factual or just opinionated. Furthermore, weapons in the whole can increase a person's susceptibility to commit violent crimes but if that is true then: A) That includes and covers the possession and ownership of small guns as well so they should also be banned and B) How come the crime rate for LEGAL OWNERS of firearms has been significantly lower than that of the crime rate for ILLEGAL FIREARM OWNERS? Side: No
You misunderstand my problem with so-called "rights." I am saying rights (fundamental, universal, human) are not granted via a document or Supreme Court ruling. These rights would include liberty, pursuit of happiness, and equality. These are vague constructs, yet seem to be morally appropriate to guarantee to all human beings, and thus are rights of all human beings. The constitution attempts to distinguish specific ways to achieve these various UNIVERSAL rights, and thus they are limited in their focus and intent. That is why I would rather not speak of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as a way of measuring a right but rather a privilege. "The rights guaranteed in the constitution cannot be limited unless one trespasses the limits of these constitutional rights" And thus you contradict yourself in one sentence. How can they not be limited, and yet still have limits, which trespassing those limits results in the creation of limits? My example of yelling fire in a crowd was a perfect example of even how freedom of speech (i.e. to say what you will when you will) is limited for the benefit of the majority. Thus we may place similar restrictions on other rights to benefit the majority. Additionally "may" merely reflected the observation that the 2nd Amendment has been limited before, and "should" reflected my opinion that it should be. I'm sorry, your analysis of simple language mechanics is faulty, and it appears you seem to be grasping at straws. "That includes and covers the possession and ownership of small guns as well so they should also be banned" No, they should be restricted. Like any policy, there is a "sweet spot" of regulation and freedom. Too much regulation and people no longer have the "right" and too little and it is nearing anarchy. Currently, it appears to me that gun laws are much too lax, and should be strengthened. "How come the crime rate for LEGAL OWNERS of firearms has been significantly lower than that of the crime rate for ILLEGAL FIREARM OWNERS?" Do you see how I provided actual, factual statistics? Do you see how you have not? Side: yes
First of all, prove to me that righ5ts are not granted via document or court ruling. The U.S Supreme Court has not granted any civilians rights but they have interpreted the rights available in the constitution and prohibit the government from violating these rights. If the Supreme Court and any document which you are claiming was not the source of rights, then why were various case laws made from these sources and why was the government prohibited from passing laws that would violate the constitutional rights of civilians. If i recall, the Supreme Court has dealt with various cases regarding racial bias, due process, 4 th amendment searches and seizures as well as racial stereotyping. The Court ruled in all these cases that due process and equality has been denied in these cases and therefore these people were freed because the source of their rights, the constitutional rights were violated. A privilege is something that you can take away whereas rights are something you cannot take from a citizen. Again, you seem to be having a hard time in understanding the technicality of my perception. How can you call the commission of a crime as a right? If one does something that produces a bad result and can endanger other lives, how can you refer to that as being a right or privilege? What you are referring to is not freedom of speech. That is referred to as a crime. There is a difference between something that we enjoy as a right but does not protect us from committing crimes. For example, the freedom of speech also extends to actions, meaning that we have a right to display our actions, so lets assume that i have a right to free speech, does that mean i can go and burn down buildings or killing people to get my message across because i have a right to free speech? Again, your example is a crime and not a right. You should read up on what adds up to a right and a crime respectively. If i was in a debate in court and used the term "MAY" people would assume i myself am not sure of the point i am trying to get across. That proves that you are not certain if what you are saying is the truth or you think it might be true or not true what you are saying. My analysis of simple language is based on the language you put forth so don't blame me for observing for what is put forth in front of me. Let me give you an example, if cops arrive on a scene to arrest a person and the person is suspected of being in a building so the cops approach you and ask you if he is in the building or not and you respond by saying "MAYBE" then that means that you are not sure but you think he might be. You see the difference between certainty and uncertainty and how words illustrate our inner opinions or may contradict our points? I think you are failing to realize or accept that restrictions will have no effect on guns. These people need to be monitored. What evidence have you provided? Factual evidence from the FBI? Which is responsible for collecting and storing records of crime? Side: No
Our perceptions of rights differ in my definition is an absolute, i.e. rights exist regardless of documents, and yours are relative, i.e. a document provides them and thus are limited by those who are governed by those documents. Does that clear up the matter? I said, "You may pass me the cheese now," quite obviously I am not having uncertainty over whether or not I will receive cheese, I am merely being polite and saying you are physically allowed to pass me the cheese. I believe I was referring to restricting the second amendment in this way, i.e. we are allowed to limit/regulate that right. "I think you are failing to realize or accept that restrictions will have no effect on guns. These people need to be monitored. What evidence have you provided? Factual evidence from the FBI? Which is responsible for collecting and storing records of crime?" And thus, you completely ignored my simple request. I did provide several studies (though embedded in an article). And for someone who has such little faith in government (after all, we need all the guns we can get to protect ourselves from their tyranny), you would still trust their studies? (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/ (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj. Are those enough trends? Side: yes
I think you are misunderstanding the perception of what importance that document serves. You are forgetting that since we do not get our rights from the government, there needs to be a document which is the ultimate source of rights that serves the purpose of preventing the government from infringing upon our rights since government tends to act in conflict to the interests of its people. Let me remind you that when this constitution was created back then, it first had to be approved by the people before it could become effective and to this day, it still is accepted and approved by the majority of the population. You are failing to understand that there is a difference between what you referred to as being a crime and what is actually a right. How can we have a right to commit a crime when the example you gave is clearly a crime? Governments are not limiting our rights because the right you are referring to is not a right but rather a crime, therefore that cannot be found in the source of rights because it is a violation of the laws. If you said to me that you MAY pass me the cheese, you used the term MAY because you are not certain if i will. If you used the term PLEASE, then you are displaying a sign of politeness. Finally, i did take a look at those statistics you sent to me and there is one major problem that i observed. Why is it that your graph fails to point out what proportion of these crimes were committed by legal or illegal firearm holders? As far as i am concerned, all these crimes could have been committed by illegal firearm holders because the graph itself fails to refer if these gun crimes were committed by illegal and or legal firearm holders, thus the proof you sent me still do not justify the point you are trying to make. I am surprised that you questioned my faith in a government by trusting their statistics when your argument illustrates a low level of faith in the government, but yet at the same time, you are using government statistics. And like i mentioned, your studies make no distinctions of gun crimes committed by illegal and legal firearm holders so how are we supposed to figure out which category makes up the larger portion of those crimes committed? Side: No
"it first had to be approved by the people before it could become effective and to this day, it still is accepted and approved by the majority of the population." I'm saying that the whims of the majority do not guarantee, grant, or deny anyone rights. Thus, neither does the document. Rights are an intrinsic aspect of an existence. You may not say, "Oh, I don't like him, so I'm going to write a document and get it approved by the governing force to take away his rights." Do you recognize how ridiculous that is? "If you said to me that you MAY pass me the cheese, you used the term MAY because you are not certain if i will. If you used the term PLEASE, then you are displaying a sign of politeness." Please, give this up. This is a very small straw you're grasping at. Focus on substantive parts of my argument. How about a quote: "In the 1992-93 Kansas City experiment, a number of police officers in the inner city of Kansas City were put specifically and entirely on the duty of searching for and eliminating illegal firearms. This heightened crackdown took place over a period of 29 weeks, after which results were studied and compared with those of the first, unchanged 29 weeks. After the 29 weeks of heightened activity against illegal firearms, the rates of gun crimes in the part of the city monitored decreased significantly, by almost 50%, whereas the "control" section of the city, in which a crackdown on illegal guns was not enforced, experienced no change in its crime rate." Quite obviously, if police crack down on illegal firearms, and gun crime rate decreases by almost 50%, you see that most gun crime is committed by illegal firearms. That is why it stands to reason that by making more powerful guns more readily available, crime rate would probably be increased because criminals would have much greater access to much more powerful weapons. Please, read the site i provided earlier: http://www.guninformation.org/ Also, it appears that yet again, I am the only one providing a factual, statistical backup for my responses. Side: yes
It amazes me that you seem to be having a hard time to grasp the point i am trying to make. If the rights come from the people, then it takes majority of the people to put that right into effect. Rights do not just come from anywhere, they come from the people. One senior prosecutor examined your argument last night and told me to ask you, if you do not need a document to prove that you have rights, then how come you need a document to prove in a court of law that you are innocent when you are already innocent and also said that you should point to any specific part of the constitution that states the term "privileges." Why would the people write a document to take away somebody else rights when the same rights that they have created for themselves would apply to all citizens of that country. Do you know how ridiculous that argument sounds? If there was a crack down on illegal firearms, then that points out to the fact that if government monitors the using of firearms by civilians then the level of firearm crimes will decrease. This is a form of monitoring in which certain requirements are not met, so the government seizes hold of that firearm until the requirements are met. If most gun crimes are committed by illegal firearm holders then it means that legal ownership of firearms combined with government monitoring can have a positive effect. The site that you provided me with seems to be lacking impartiality since it seems to be biased. At the beginning of the site, the author did not post his name (i wonder why nor the date the information was last updated or published) and because of his bias and lack of impartiality, any information obtained would be biased since he is obtaining information to satisfy his level of bias. In all of his argument or evidence, he introduced sources who were biased to gun rights which leads me to wonder why did he not introduce sources favorable to gun rights and then produce counter sources to counter act the point made by those sources? Secondly, some of the sources were from religious sources which is an issue since sources that are religious in nature would tend to mix religion with logic. Thirdly, some of the results in the research were conducted in different countries, which is unacceptable for me to read since you cannot in any way compare a country to the United States because there can be more than one factor that can be causing the gun crime rate there and also there is a difference in the size of the country and the population as well as social issues. "Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz have found that as many as 400,000 people per year use guns in situations in which they later claimed that the gun almost saved their lives. Even if these estimates are off by a factor of 10, it means that armed citizens may save 40, 000 lives yearly" (Siegel, Larry J. (2008), Introduction to Criminal Justice (12th Ed.), pg. 70) Also the source of the problem is illegal firearm ownership because according to the National Crime Victimization Center, illegal firearms are used in about 20 percent of robberies, 10 percent of assaults and 5 percent of rapes. Therefore, if you outlaw automatic guns criminals will still have access to these guns because there are still gangs who have access to these guns and can sell them to earn a profit. "Banning the use of firearms will lead to that gun having more value which can lead to an increased trafficking in gun as well as other illegal substances (Siegel, Criminology: Theories, patterns and typologies 10th Ed. pg. 50) Side: No
So what you're saying is rights are decided by a majority? You have the freedom of speech because a bunch of people voted that people should be allowed to speak there mind? Does that not also imply that rights may be taken away in a similar manner? Therefore, that "right" is not so much a right in that it is yours no matter what as much as it is a privilege granted to you by a population. I am saying rights are absolutes, transient of any human document. You're saying rights are fabrications of a human society and thus vary not just from place to place but person to person as well. I do not understand how a document is proof. A document proves something has happened before. It does not physically allow or disallow you to do things. A document really has no power beyond the power people place in it. "point to any specific part of the constitution that states the term "privileges."" It doesn't. I'm just disputing your concept of what is a right. "Do you know how ridiculous that argument sounds?" That was the entire point. "legal ownership of firearms combined with government monitoring" Your entire argument was based on the efficiency of government monitoring and thus being able to crackdown on illegal firearms (I think. Your argument was confusingly worded, e.g. "certain requirements"). Why did you suddenly lump "legal ownership of firearms" into the argument when you had previously not substantiated that claim? "'Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz have found that as many as 400,000 people per year use guns in situations in which they later claimed that the gun almost saved their lives. Even if these estimates are off by a factor of 10, it means that armed citizens may save 40, 000 lives yearly' (Siegel, Larry J. (2008), Introduction to Criminal Justice (12th Ed.), pg. 70)" This argument is actually addressed by a Harvard professor of Health Policy, David Hemenway. He states: "Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias. Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. [34] One question asked: 'Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?' [Page 1438] Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, 'Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?' and 6% answered 'Yes.'By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news--but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists." "he is obtaining information to satisfy his level of bias" Yes of course, and you aren't either? "Secondly, some of the sources were from religious sources which is an issue since sources that are religious in nature would tend to mix religion with logic." And what exactly is your basis to say that religious people would falsify data or conduct irresponsible surveys? You imply that religious people are illogical (or that the two are mutually exclusive) but I have met very many religious people who are exceptionally logical. Actually, it would be ILLOGICAL to come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no way religion is right about (a) god(s), as it is simply impossible for either side to prove existence or nonexistence. Therefore, to assume that religious people are illogical would be itself a logical fallacy. "which is unacceptable for me to read since you cannot in any way compare a country to the United States because there can be more than one factor that can be causing the gun crime rate there and also there is a difference in the size of the country and the population as well as social issues." Yes of course, you may not compare other countries to the US when talking about guns, except of course when it's the countries with low crime rates and low gun control. "Therefore, if you outlaw automatic guns criminals will still have access to these guns because there are still gangs who have access to these guns and can sell them to earn a profit." And making guns more available will actually have the opposite effect, right? Making automatic weapons cheap and readily available will completely disincentivize ownership of automatic weapons. Side: yes
Rights have always been decided by the majority because it takes the cooperation of the majority to put it into effect. But anyway since we both agree that rights exist but we disagree on the sources of rights i will address that. Th constitution is a document that was written and preserved and handed down from one generation to the next. It is a living proof that we are protected by rights which guarantees protection from the government. Before that constitution, was created, majority of the people voted for it to be put into effect. If you don't believe that rights come from the majority then how come laws are created with the approval of majority of the population? How come before we can over throw a government, majority of the votes from the population needs to outweigh the minor? How come when a Supreme or Appellate Courts decides a case, it takes majority of the votes to make a decision in that case? The human society was and is constructed in such a way that the larger population decides what is a right and hardly have they taken away a right from somebody else. Didn't majority of the population voted for certain actions to be labelled criminal, so would you say that is unfair because majority of the population took away the right from another civilian to commit a crime? That is the very reason why a document has power, because it is made up of the power THE PEOPLE gave it that power which serves as a proof against governmental infringement of our rights. Furthermore, at that time the constitution was created, there was no opposition to it from the people. I am surprise you were arguing earlier that the constitution is privileged but yet in the same document you are disputing you cannot point to one specific word pointing to privilege meanwhile at the same time you will find many amendment such as the 4th amendment beginning with "the right of the people." It is interesting that you do not see "certain rights" as related to the 2 amendment as i am explaining and repeating myself for the 3rd time which goes back that firearms CANNOT be restricted to people especially since it is designed in a way that is useful for self defense (Automatic firearm). If you don't understand government monitoring to be legal ownership then i advise you to put your critical thinking skills to work before responding to an argument. Your argument and the evidence you introduced is weak. The source i introduced is a source that is valid and is being used by all schools offering law and pre-law countrywide. Moreover, the author of that textbook is the chairperson of John Jay School of Criminal Justice as well as a professor at many other law schools. He is also a criminologist and one of the most recognized authors. Secondly, how do you know that these surveys were completed via telephone? How do you know that these researchers were not representing a government funded research? I see no point in a rebuttal that has nothing to do with the source i have introduced. He said that he would like to introduce information pertaining to gun control and introduced sources which were from religious sources and other sources that all demonstrated campaigns against firearm rights in general. Why did you not answer the part where i asked you why he did not introduced statistics from the supporter researches of gun rights and why does he fail to mention his name? We are in a debate but he is introducing factual information, thus there is a difference between my method of debating and his method of presenting information. Sources that are religious tend to produce bias information because their emotions prevents them from accepting logical information in terms of issues pertaining to social structure. I did not in any way mentioned they are illogical or logical. My point i am trying to establish is that they have a religious view on certain logical issues that causes them to produce information to satisfy their logic. Take abortion and prostitution as examples. Also if you recall my point i said MIX RELIGION WITH LOGIC. What part of that statement points to what you are illustrating? Low crime rates can be the result of better social structure and not just low gun rate. It could be the result of a smaller population and better availability of education and jobs. These are all issues pertaining to crime so hence, your argument is merely opinionated rather than factual. The point that you are failing to understand that illegal firearms will contribute to more people owning guns illegally without the government having any knowledge thereof and can cause a increase in crime. Therefore the best form of system is a system of monitoring firearms users, not restrict them. Side: No
I can essentially ignore the rest of your argument and point out one specific point: "Low crime rates can be the result of better social structure and not just low gun rate. It could be the result of a smaller population and better availability of education and jobs. These are all issues pertaining to crime so hence, your argument is merely opinionated rather than factual." Firstly, of course my argument is opinionated. That is what an argument is. It is based on facts (and you calling them "weak" simply because the other did not provide you facts that you would like to have used does not negate that he does in fact present facts). Secondly, yes, your argument about those issues all pertaining to crime is entirely valid. So why then can you say that if we were to have automatic weapons, we would be safer? Countries with legal automatic weapons would have different demographics. Various states have various demographics where perhaps an automatic weapon would be beneficial, as do counties, cities and neighborhoods. You must recognize that we must be able to compare a very broad swath of humanity (the US is a big place) and say that for the majority of places in the US, automatic weapons would not provide enough of a benefit to outweigh their risks. Eh, I can't resist the rest of your argument. Well, most of it. I feel we should limit our discussion to the discussion of automatic weapons and thus eliminate our discussion of where rights originate as it has grown quite off topic. I'll make a separate debate for it if you wish. "If you don't understand government monitoring to be legal ownership then i advise you to put your critical thinking skills to work before responding to an argument." I don't not understand your argument, it is just the phrasing and syntax is quite amorphous. "The source i introduced is a source that is valid and is being used by all schools offering law and pre-law countrywide. Moreover, the author of that textbook is the chairperson of John Jay School of Criminal Justice as well as a professor at many other law schools." And my refutation of that source was a man named David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard school of Public Health, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, among other titles related to the field of public health. I would posit he is a reliable source. "Secondly, how do you know that these surveys were completed via telephone?" This is how I know, "We use the most anonymous possible national survey format, the anonymous random digit dialed telephone survey." (http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html) "How do you know that these researchers were not representing a government funded research?" Because Kleck makes it quite clear that he does not accept the data compiled by the Bureau of the Census to be valid. "My point i am trying to establish is that they have a religious view on certain logical issues that causes them to produce information to satisfy their logic. " And thus they are illogical. I'm sorry, but that is what you are saying, and I find it incredibly narrow-minded to dismiss a survey (not an interpretation of a survey, but the survey itself) based on the fact that it was conducted by a religious organization. "he did not introduced statistics from the supporter researches of gun rights" That would be okay, but to introduce information that supports gun control? Off with his head! The point is, yes, if you bothered to read any of the rest of the site, you would notice that quite obviously the author is a gun control advocate. However, that does not dismiss the information he presented. Information is information. "The point that you are failing to understand that illegal firearms will contribute to more people owning guns illegally without the government having any knowledge thereof and can cause a increase in crime." Your first sentence is perhaps the most circular argument I've heard: illegal firearms will cause more people to own guns illegal because they will be illegal if people own them. Obviously. However, you fail to understand that if you make automatic weapons legal (and all weapons apparently. You say earlier in your argument suddenly that you are advocating a complete lack of restrictions on firearms, "firearms CANNOT be restricted to people," although I believe we had previously discussed how it was necessary to restrict gun activities from various groups of people-like insane people or criminals-or to make it necessary for government regulation of the gun market. This seems like a frightening prospect, much more so than a restriction of automatic weapons.), the pool of automatic weapons will in fact enlarge, and more people will own them, and the weapons will be more accessible by those who may have been hesitant about ownership simply because of their illegal nature. Suddenly, it would seem more acceptable to rob a convenience store with an automatic weapon versus a handgun or a knife. Saying that having a small pool of automatic weapons leads to a greater number of people having automatic weapons is quite illogical. Side: yes
unfortunately, automatic weapons were not designed for self defense, and I am not entirely sure where you pulled this misinformation from. I have here the patent for automatic arms. It was designed by a military brigadier, so as to reduce reload times, and kill more enemy soldiers. and here is the source stating that owning a gun increases the likelihood of getting shot. I do agree that illegal firearm use is a more pressing issue than legal firearm use- yet this discussion is over automatic firearms, which is entirely unnecessary for self defense. Should a gun be needed, a rifle, pistol, or shotgun are more than necessary. Why take the unnecessary risk of using an uzi to shoot in self defense? Side: yes
1
point
Your first point merely echoes my point about illegal/illicit drugs (why not legalize meth, crack, cocaine, and everything else because then the government can keep a registry of drug owners and monitor them but in the illegal way the government has no idea who owns drugs and this can cause a threat to society). See, you just substituted firearms for drugs. This is not so. Meth and cocaine cannot be used in a positive way since they will always cause bodily harm. Guns on the other hand, can be used for hunting and protection. An automatic weapon would have probably been more dangerous in this situation, especially since the criminal would have had a higher probability of owning an automatic weapon as well. The point being made was that banning guns won't help the potential victims. Criminals seldom obtain their guns by legal means. Side: No
"Guns on the other hand, can be used for hunting and protection." Do you shoot moose with machine guns? Do you need an AK for protecting yourself from muggers? "banning guns won't help the potential victims" Where have I said anything about banning guns. Take your guns, fine, you may have that "right." That does not, however, give you the right to fire any kind of weaponry you want. If you want to take this back to the founders, they would be appalled at the way people abuse the Second Amendment in order to justify owning frivolous (for civilians) arms. The worst they had were muskets (inaccurate at that) and canons (more so) that came no where near the deadly force of even a handgun today. Side: yes
2
points
Do you shoot moose with machine guns? Do you need an AK for protecting yourself from muggers? Hunting with automatic weapons is illegal in the United States and unsportsmanlike besides. Although if a bear is charging at you, it would be good to have an automatic .45 to kill it before it kills you. And automatic weapons are much more effective than semi-autos to eliminate multiple or armored targets (such as gang break-ins, or an intruder with a bullet proof vest). If you want to take this back to the founders, they would be appalled at the way people abuse the Second Amendment in order to justify owning frivolous (for civilians) arms. They most certainly would not. Every one of them thoroughly understood the importance of having an armed citizenry, and they encouraged the ownership of guns as much as they could. Without the strong prevalence of firearms in early America, they could have never succeeded in their revolution, and without the continuation of armed citizens, the government could obtain absolute power and oppress the people. The worst they had were muskets (inaccurate at that) and canons (more so) that came no where near the deadly force of even a handgun today. But the important part was the fact that weapons were evenly matched. People could still kill each other with firearms, and often did in the revolution. Thousands upon thousands of people met their fate at the end of a gun making the gun violence of today a drop in the bucket (despite the fact that they are more advanced). Everyone was well aware of their lethal potential, and yet they were encouraged anyways because when a society is armed, citizens are much more reluctant to commit a crime and governments are much more reluctant to oppress the people. Side: No
Yes, shooting an automatic weapon in a domestic area sounds like a fine idea. It's similar to gassing a house with a family in it in order to kill some ants. At least you killed all the ants, right? "without the continuation of armed citizens, the government could obtain absolute power and oppress the people." You don't think that's a strawman argument? Here's what happens with weapons: http://www.jahonline.org/article/ Education, on the other hand, is almost universally acknowledged as the best way for people to influence their government (without bloody revolution). An in fact, those with a low education are more likely to commit crimes (http://www.fightcrime. So would it not make more sense for people to invest more energy and money in the education effort rather than the armament effort? Side: yes
1
point
Yes, shooting an automatic weapon in a domestic area sounds like a fine idea. It's similar to gassing a house with a family in it in order to kill some ants. At least you killed all the ants, right? Do you realize that break-ins aren't always a one man job? And do you also know that some intruders wear body armor? Automatic weapons are more effective against such targets. You don't think that's a strawman argument? No, because it has happened in the past. Also, that was one of the main reasons the founders encouraged people to be armed. So would it not make more sense for people to invest more energy and money in the education effort rather than the armament effort? Allowing citizens to own automatic weapons doesn't necessitate a draw on government resources. Side: No
There's really no way I can argue with you. Yes, shooting a spray of bullets at "enemies" will be more efficient than taking the time to individually shoot each person, but that does not necessitate owning automatic weapons. "Also, that was one of the main reasons the founders encouraged people to be armed." Jesus christ, please stay on topic, this is getting exhausting. I earlier said, keep your arms. I'm not asking to deprive you of all guns, merely automatic. This is a rather good site: http://www.guncite.com/ It says that .2% (1/5 of 1%) of violent crimes are perpetrated with assault weapons (even using their broad definition). Therefore, to claim that you need an automatic weapon to defend you and your family against these hordes of automatic-weapon-bearing criminals is simply ludicrous. "Allowing citizens to own automatic weapons doesn't necessitate a draw on government resources." No, but the billions (to trillions worldwide) of money spent on arming ourself with firearms could largely be used more efficiently spent on better educating a nation. Side: yes
1
point
Yes, shooting a spray of bullets at "enemies" will be more efficient than taking the time to individually shoot each person, but that does not necessitate owning automatic weapons. When someone (or multiple people) break into your house, seconds count. Especially when the intruders are armed. It says that .2% (1/5 of 1%) of violent crimes are perpetrated with assault weapons (even using their broad definition). Therefore, to claim that you need an automatic weapon to defend you and your family against these hordes of automatic-weapon-bearing criminals is simply ludicrous. How about shotguns? or pistols? They kill people just as well as an "assault rifle" and most are a lot cheaper. And no, you probably wont ever encounter a situation in which you NEED an automatic. Just like you will probably never NEED to use a concealed weapon for your own defense. But the point is that it's better to be allowed to have it on the chance that the need arises. No, but the billions (to trillions worldwide) of money spent on arming ourself with firearms could largely be used more efficiently spent on better educating a nation. Sure it could. But making laws that decide where private sector money goes is called socialism. And socialism won't work in this country. Side: No
There is literally no point in arguing this. It is not so much you have convinced me of anything, or I feel like you make valid points, so much as it is that you are so entrenched in your ideas of why one should be able to carry deadly weapons and inflict deadly harm on someone at any time that I cannot even hope to "win" the debate. Also, this debate is entirely unrelated to socialism. Side: yes
Why do you follow the laws that were created 100s of years ago? Arent they man made? And to respond to you, those childre n are orhans now because their father was killed not able to defend himself. Even though the children saw their father killed, at a distance they saw him being shot they could not have been injured. Side: No
I do follow laws but laws are updated often enough to make most of them make sense. The US constitution is old and could use updating just like any other set of laws. It's true that it would complicated to revoke peoples right to bear arms but if it would be done It would be for the better. And I apologize if I upset you with my answer to your question regarding the family but what I meant was that the situation could have been escalated to a far more dangerous situation should the father have pulled a gun on the robber. The father would like any other normal person have been slightly hesitant about shooting someone. Side: yes
1
point
It's true that it would complicated to revoke peoples right to bear arms but if it would be done It would be for the better. It most certainly would not be for the better, and I believe you underestimate American attachment to their gun rights. There are several million gun owners here, and if the right to bear arms was revoked, there would almost certainly be a civil war. Especially considering the fact that most of the armed services would likely side with gun owners. I meant was that the situation could have been escalated to a far more dangerous situation should the father have pulled a gun on the robber. The father would like any other normal person have been slightly hesitant about shooting someone. Most gun owners (in the US anyways) are quite competent with their firearms, and I can tell you from experience, the hesitation doesn't happen when you or your family is in danger. Side: No
I agree with you. Banning the use of firearms on civilians would most certainly introduce a new civil war in society and more damage to the society than one could imagine. Because if a right is taken awasy from them, then they will see it as a form of dictatorship and hence try to rebel since it is a right granted to them by the constitution. Not only would it create a civil war but the crime rate will also go up because the illegal firearm owners will now have the upper hand on choosing and attacking their potential victims. Side: No
By revoking peoples right to bare arms I didn't mean that the government is to swoop down and forcefully collect everybody's guns, I was thinking of something a bit more gradual like perhaps starting with putting up restrictions to make it more difficult to buy a gun. And on the second point I sincerely hope that all Americans aren't so hardened and cold that they could without even a second of hesitation pull out a gun and immediately shoot someone. To believe that any regular person no matter the country could easily gun down an other person is delusional. I'm not trying to be offensive and I understand that there are people that would have an easier time shooting someone than others but the reality is that most people would hesitate even for only the briefest moment and that moment can be vital to what happens next. Side: yes
1
point
By revoking peoples right to bare arms I didn't mean that the government is to swoop down and forcefully collect everybody's guns, I was thinking of something a bit more gradual like perhaps starting with putting up restrictions to make it more difficult to buy a gun. Then the conflict would only be delayed. There would be continually more public unrest and protesting until it eventually became violent just as it would be if they were confiscated. And on the second point I sincerely hope that all Americans aren't so hardened and cold that they could without even a second of hesitation pull out a gun and immediately shoot someone. I speak from experience on this particular topic, and it's not something that anyone wants to be faced with. But there are times when a person must protect himself and his family because he has a duty to them and to himself. Even if that means killing the attacker. Side: No
First of all, most of the laws are updated because of the constitution. In most of the instances, government might create or already have a law that is infringing upon the rights of the people so when a person is incacerated because of the vagueness, ex post facto or inefficient law, the Supreme Court has to interpret the Constitution and then apply it to update the law. There are so many case laws that were created from the constitution and so many laws created by legislators were striked down because it was seen as a violation of civilian rights when interpreted by the constitution. Do you think, that if we are in a emergency, we can always depend on police officers to save us? Do you think that if i call 911, and there is a man holding a gun, and the cops take appromixately 15 mins to arrive, between the scope of that 15 minuites, i will be begging for my life and defenseless infront of my perpretator only for the cop to arrive and then find my dead body. As it is, many laws are already favorable to the defendant and what you are proposing is a law favorable to the defendant because the victim is not allowed to carry a weapon but at the same time, the defendant will still carry a weapon even if it is illegal for the sole purpose of robbing someone or killing someone. I agree with you that maybe the situation could have escalated but how do you know that it could have? Are you certain or just making a presumption? How come in many other cases, people that uses gun for self defence dont end up injuring other members of their families in the process of defending themselves. Take for example the Connecticut murders that took place recently, in which the father was tied up, beaten, wife and two daughters killed in which one of the daughter was raped infront of the family before she was killed. Dont you think that if the father or mature family member had access to a weapon, all this could have been prevented? Or are you going to say that somebody else could have been hurt? Cause the entire family with the exception of the father died. Side: No
I agree with you on many of your points and in present day America changing the policy on guns would be extremely difficult but you must agree with me when I say that a country functions better without such an abundance of guns. And I also agree that the incident in Connecticut could have most certainly been prevented should one of them had access to a gun. I still stand by my belief that a country should in any case function better and be safer in the long run without such free access to guns. Side: yes
I do not agree with you that a country can run better without the abundance of guns. I believe you are under the presumption that anyone can have acess to a gun. Not anyone however can have access to a gun so in other words, access to guns are not free. It is limited because there are other factors that helps to determine who is better suited for a gun. These factors includes criminal history or any mental evaluation and furthermore, the government keeps a registry for firearm holders and monitor their use by also requiring them to renew their registration yearly. Side: No
I fear that I might have been unclear you see I accidentally strayed from the subject but I only wonder if you honestly believe that in the future America will have truly benefited from your current weapon policy. And you are correct the US can't be seen as one country when it comes to laws but gradually change the approach to guns in individual states. I admit its a bit naive of me to think that your entire country wouldn't be pissed about one of there rights. I want you to think past the inevitable impact of removing a right and think of the benefits afterwards granted that you aren't launched into a civil war in which case you'd be screwed. Side: yes
Its ok to stray off topic sometimes to establish your point. How can we know if this country will benefit from that policy until you give them a chance to put it into effect. And like i would have mentioned earlier in my argument, the use of firearms in the home for self defence has helped to save many lives in the past and majority of the crimes committed are committed by illegal firearm holders. This should be a clear indicator that legal ownership of guns in no way has increased potential criminality for law abiding citizens. I strongly think that if you remove that rights and lets assume that a civil war occurs. Now lets think past that, dont you think the civil war will cause the economy as well as the social structure of this country to collapse and plunge us into a new era of severe depression? Side: No
1
point
|
