Question: Should Individuals be Granted the Right to Conceal Carry a Firearm?

Gun Control and the Right to Bear Arms

Contrary to the narrative pushed by the liberal media, the United Kingdom's crime rate serves as a stark warning against stringent gun control measures. The UK implemented one of the most severe gun ban policies in the Western world, and it has consistently ranked among the top two most violent countries in the developed world, significantly more violent than the United States. It's crucial to understand that the statement "more guns mean less crime" does not imply that everyone should own a gun. The safety of a society is rooted in the individual's freedom to bear arms, which inherently deters criminals and prevents criminal acts.

In recent years, Americans have been purchasing firearms at unprecedented rates, despite a sharp decline in violent crime rates, as confirmed by the FBI's own study. The violent crime rate in the US has decreased by 15.4% since 2007 and 15.5% since 2002. The murder rate has also dropped from 9.3 per 100,000 in 1992 to 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011. This decline occurred during a period when gun laws in the United States became considerably less restrictive.

The media's intense focus on firearms and the government's attacks on gun rights appear to be exploiting the public's emotions over tragedies. After a shooting, the response is always to take guns away from those who did not commit the crime. I wouldn't want to live in a society where only the police, military, and criminals have access to guns. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to gun ownership, protected by the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers, who were wise men dedicated to the prosperity and freedom of the people, recognized that any governmental restrictions on gun ownership imposed on American citizens would be unconstitutional. The Constitution of the United States is a monumental human rights document that empowers the people over the government and corporations, leading the nation to freedom and prosperity.

The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Founding Fathers were clear about the importance of firearms: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." The presence of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference and deserves a place of honor with all that is good.

The Found

While what you stated is true, certain guns are banned and restricted from certain areas. In NYC a gun must be concealable and have proper registration. While i do oppose drug dealers strolling down broadway with a rifle in hand, i must state that this is once again going back to the concept of taking away rights. A person might keep a shotgun in their house in the rural backcountry but in the city, having a shotgun ready for annintruder in the umbrella rack is a crime

Apologies in advance; I am not well-versed with the structure and style of Lincoln-Douglas debates. Hopefully you will be fine with me simply responding to your arguments one by one.Contrary to your statement, the people of the United States have a moral obligation to defend and uphold gun rights.I will define moral as that which is conducive to the life of a rational, productive human being -- as such, that which is good, or moral, provides positive value to human life, and that which is evil threatens the basic requirements of human life. This is self-evident as morality provides a set of values necessary for life -- and living to the fullest extent is the ultimate purpose of morality. Further, I will define rights as "freedoms protecting an individual's right to choose a given course of action." As such, the fundamental purpose of a right is to uphold the requirements of every individual's proper survival.As such, individuals must have a right to uphold their life through the use of reason, as opposed to coercion and force. Put simply, coercion is based on the use of fear -- a coercer violently seizes property from another man if he fails to comply with the coercer.A coercer exits the realm of reason and voluntary trade, threatening the lives of rational, law-abiding citizens. As such, others have a right to use force against this coercer in order to uphold their own lives -- every individual has a fundamental right to self-defense.It follows that if an individual has the right to use retaliatory force to preserve his own life, he must have the right to choose the optimal means of doing so. By restricting gun ownership, the government essentially infringes upon individuals' right to choose the best means of defending their life -- and this is profoundly immoral.Now that I have defined these fundamental terms, I will address your arguments.First, you claim that guns promote domestic violence, and violence in general. This claim is based on a kernel of truth -- guns are a means to an end: the harm of another individual. But harming others is not inherently immoral; as I have shown above, harming others in retaliation is perfectly justifiable. Furthermore, the suppression of gun rights, beyond being fundamentally immoral, does nothing to inhibit violence in the long run. Violent criminals, by definition, abstain from following the law. As such, a ban on guns or any other restriction on gun rights will not be obeyed by criminals truly bent upon destruction -- as is easily shown by the rise of homemade weapons, the massive illegal arms trade, and the black market for weapons. For instance, after a 1996 ban on handguns in the UK, gun crime more than doubled (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...). A ban on guns does, however, violate the rights of law-abiding, innocent citizens. By stopping individuals from defending themselves to the fullest extent, we leave them completely vulnerable to the actions of violent, ruthless criminals. This is inexcusable and undoubtedly immoral.Second, you claim that guns assist suicide. This relationship is not consistent and definite -- and there most certainly is not a causal relationship between gun ownership and suicide. A 2007 analysis (http://www.law.harvard.edu...) of international evidence found that "there is simply no relationship evident between the extent of suicide and the extent of gun ownership." They provide ample evidence for this claim: "Sweden, with over twice as much gun ownership as neighboring Germany and a third more gun suicide, nevertheless has the lower overall suicide rate. Greece has nearly three times more gun ownership than the Czech Republic and somewhat more gun suicide, yet the overall Czech suicide rate is over 175% higher than the Greek rate. Spain has over 12 times more gun ownership than Poland, yet the latter's overall suicide rate is more than double the former’s. Tragically, Finland has over 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia, and a great deal more gunR08;related suicide. Estonia, however, turns out to have a much higher suicide rate than Finland overall." Furthremore, as Jacob Sullum writes, "Japan, with a gun ownership rate of 0.6 per 100 people, compared to 88.8 in the United States, has a suicide rate nearly twice as high as high. China and South Korea likewise have much lower rates of civilian gun ownership but much higher rates of suicide. The relationship between gun ownership and suicide clearly is neither consistent nor straightforward."Clearly, there is nearly no relationship between gun ownership and suicide -- and thus, this argument is no justification for the violation of gun rights.

Con states- "The ban of assault rifles in our country is openly against the 2nd amendment"Demonstrates the extent of the illiteracy of the common folk! That our schools fail to properly teach the english language is self evident. I GIVE YOU THE The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. But it should not! It is plainly stated. It does not stipulate by definition and wording the authorization nor RIGHT of the PEOPLE to own WEAPONS OF WAR- save in the capacity of MILITIA!Read it again! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary/ the right of the people to keep and bear Armslet's look at that by defintion shall we?Definition;Militia noun: militia; plural noun: militias a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. Now for the REALLY DENSE- Organized militia. Each state has two mandatory forces, namely the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. Many states also have state defense forces and a naval militia, which assist, support and augment National Guard forces. (are we learning yet?) National Guard/Reserve (who HAVE tanks, and weapons of War!) but they CANNOT TAKE THEM HOME!You have a Right to bear arms- but NOT BEING MILITIA restricts in common sense and practicality, the rights of "THE PEOPLE" to OWN TANKS OR WEAPONS OF WAR! End of subject! Thank you for playing have we or have we NOT common sense!The reasoning powers of the founding fathers are obviously more suited to Patriots of State/Country. Being Mature Individuals, with a high degree of competence, fair play and equality of mind, these people set up a Nation. in essense more suited to thinking along the Line of myself and others of National interest above self gratification standards.and theose less than 21? Forget about it! Evidence of History- That NO CANNON WAS personally owned by individual persons in the entire Country, save Business concerns and even THEN sparingly ... like maybe 2 in the whole country! Demonstrates that weapons of War were OUTSIDE the RIGHT of ownership of the common man!so unless you can show evidence- like the kind just revealed to you above? Your just staing like everyone ELSE .... opinion. and opinion isn't evidence of TRUTH!Now THIS is an example of persons LYING to attempt to persuade others into BELIEVING their opinions .... no evidence mind you ... just opinion;Yes, private citizens were allowed to own cannons, and many did. It was very common for private merchant ships (for example) to be equipped with cannons. They were called "armed merchantmen" - so yes, "arms" definitely did include cannons.https://www.reddit.com...Now lets LOOK at this statement CAREFULLY with UNSHADED glasses. also note he states MANY but gives NO EVIDENCE of the many (NONE) , only militia (merchant ships)Yes, private citizens were allowed to own cannons ( notice this extremely biased opinion- opinion mind you- not evidence!)Now note the BIG EVIDENCE this misguided prejudiced fellow uses- private merchant ships (for example) to be equipped with cannons. They were called "armed merchantmen"Now let US LOOK at this statement a moment- PRIVATE? Merchant ships that transport Goods, are FAR from PRIVATE- they carry , Treasures, Stores, Humanity- being aware of course of Pirates which exist even today- those ... UHHHH supposed private Vessels REQUIRED protection ..... TODAY WE CALL THEM THE COAST GUARD! And Yes they HAVE weapons of war, they are tasked to protect the lanes of shipping which did not exist in this time but emerged later on! that however isn't proof of anything but self prejudice. Let them actually provide proof of common everyday folks owning cannons, not those who it just made sense that the need for security and protection was common sense necessity!Who owned a Cannon in antiquity to protect his home, outside royalty, Monarchs and such .... answer ZERO!so no proof other than opinion? FORGET ABOUT IT!So yes these prejudiced people spin yarns "higher than haman" but sadly ZERO evidence is ever forth coming! just opinion after opinion, with nothing to back up their assertions , yet History itself DEMONSTRATES the common folk did NOT have cannons! PERIOD! which were weapons of War!

Con says it's the parents' fault. How does he plan to solve for this? Does he offer a counter-proposal? I don't see one. He even admits that "parents with unstable or misbehaving children should nit have gun ownership," something that would require the gun control he so vehemently disagrees with. And, once again, I'm not taking away the right to wield guns, at least not that of anyone who can pass a background check. But more on that later.It is the parent's fault I am not saying homicide should be legal I am saying and defending the point of guns that if a child is not a normal child do not have a arsenal nearby. Gun control is not needed in order for that it is responsibilty that counts. Backround checks are made by the government and it is like stop and frisk. Backround checks have nothing to do with striter gun laws. Con mishandles this argument. First off, you'll note that suicide rates are higher in homes with guns than those without, he never responds to that. Second, note that states with background checks and higher restrictions on gun rights also have lower suicide and homicide rates on the whole. That's with these deadly "house knives." Third, I didn't claim that I'm solving for all of suicide. I don't see why I would have to in order to yield benefits in reducing the amount of suicide. Fourth, knives and hammers are still a whole lot less effective when committing suicide than guns. It normally only takes a single trigger pull, versus multiple attempts at slashing or pounding. The damage caused by these two items is often treatable as well.I never said that guns dont increase sucide your saying that since we have guns it is easy to kill eachother. And so? If the person wants to die let him be. In certain cases their nees to be sucide which are during- school shootings.And knives dont even take a minute and you can still kill yourself should we take control of knives. Also people kill themselves with cars should we have stricter laws People can steal guns." This is a common argument, but it doesn't hold much water. First off, as I stated, more guns are likely to be locked up and kept that much further from the hands of intruders. Second, this still requires an extra step, forcing these criminals to break into houses known to contain guns without their own to start with. That means fewer are likely to do it, since the risk of injury or death dramatically increases, and the payoff is just getting back to where they are now. Third, even you buy this wholesale, it's not a reason to do nothing. People break the law. That doesn't mean that the law is no good, it just means enforcement needs to be improved. As for gangs and mafias, again, we can't solve for every kind of criminal getting any guns. These groups will have a harder time of it, but I don't doubt that they will sometimes manage to get guns. That just puts us back in status quo, which is what Con is arguing for. I don't doubt that some criminals "can be smart," but fewer will be able to acquire guns, and next to none of them will be able to do so legally. I didn't say that all criminals were poor, and no, that was not an assertion, it was sourced from Maurice Ward, a Juvenile Justice Program Administrator for Washington State (my [8]). If my opponent would care to provide a competing link, he may do so. I realize that handguns are destructive (though, I would say that Con's only hurting his case by stating this), and background checks and registries would still solve for this. They are not as destructive as assault or semi-automatic rifles (my [9] and [10]).Hnadguns are destructive and I am not hurting my case. You said that guns should have a stricter purpose. Hand guns are very accurate and can kill and people need them in their households. Criminals do not obey laws they can still find a way to break through doors. People could send and make bots and break open the door with heavy explosive bombs. And what if those criminals robbed a bank with 1,0000000000 in it they would be able to afford bombs. "...states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher."[2]I have nothing o refute withI think I was a poor represenative and I feel like I might go back to my old self defending gun control

Okay, first his case, then mine. Premise 1: The Constitution is living. First, simply because the Supreme Court does something, does not mean they are right. In the Dred Scott case, and Plessy v. Ferguson I think we can agree that they were wrong. The fact that the Supreme Court overturns itself is not proof that the Constitution is living, it is simply proof that the Constitution is very confusing, even to experts on the topic, and they are sometimes wrong, (Dred Scott, Plessy). Your Justice Brennan quote does not prove the constitution is living, as if we just use quotes to prove our points I'll use Justice Scalia's famous statement: "The constitution is dead!" It doesn't prove my point, but neither does your Brennan point, one of them is wrong, the other is right. You have not refuted my point that a law's meaning does not change simply because the times change, the first amendment does not lose its meaning as protector of free speech, neither does the second amendment. But since you dropped the point it is flowed across regardless of your defense. Premise 2: The living constitution allows us to interpret laws, in this case the second amendment, differently than the framer's intent due to social conditions. Since I took out Premise 1, this premise fails. Anyways, the times don't call for a change in interpretation anyways. They may call for safety restrictions such as licenses, trigger locks, assault weapon bans, but not for an outright ban on firearms possession. Men still can form one man militias against intruding murderers, robbers, and thugs. This is especially important in more dangerous parts of the country. Conclusion: As I proved the constitution is not living your conclusion fails. My case: Contention 1: Actually I think you said that. Anyways, as I have said, they have the right so that they can protect themselves, and at the time, a local militia was most effective. That's why it referred to militias in the ablative. They have the right so that, if they wish, they can join a militia. Just because one is not in a militia does not revoke the right. Or maybe you mean militias are no longer necessary. As I mentioned earlier, the "one-man militia" is necessary today to protect one's home and family especially in dangerous parts of the country. You also claim I agree with you multiple times, but this is false. The first amendment was given to us so that we could make anti-government speech, but it does not apply only to anti-government speech, most speech is protected under the first amendment. The same goes for the second, the right was given so that we could join militias, but it is not limited to militias. You also say that I have no justification that the second amendment gives individual right. I do, and I have said it. It says the people in the second clause, rather than the militia's. If it gave a right to militias only it would say militias, not people. The word people implies that the right to bear arms is given to the people, not just the military. Contention 2: Addressed this but, the ablative is not restrictive, it is explanatory. It is the why, not the how. Example: "The city having been captured, Aeneas fled." Aeneas fled because the city was captured, it does not mean that Aeneas can only flee if said city is captured. I also pointed out the usage of "people" and the eight primary sources or so in C4. Contention 3: i) Addressed that up in opponent's P1 ii) one man militia I mentioned is the same thing. Anyways, you contradict yourself, you first said that it was only for state militias. iii) Addressed this. iv) Opponent dropped this, ergo he agrees that founders intended it to be an individual right. v) Opponent dropped this, ergo he agrees that founders intended it to be an individual right. Contention 4: Already showed the constitution is not living so 21st century conditions are irrelevant. Summary: Since I have proven that the Constitution's basic meaning does not change, and I have proven that the founders intended it to be an individual right, you voter PRO. I rest my case.

I hope I can counter him! My fellow DDOians, let me be the first to say that I want to stop crime as much as possible. My vision is that we all live in a world free from fear, harm, and that we all need to work together to ensure every american family can feel safe within their homes. Which is why I personally support gun control laws. I couldn't imagine the pain of losing a loved one to a shooting, and I think we all agree that we do not want to see criminals getting guns, but the question thus becomes, how do we best stop criminals from getting them? The answer is regulation, in my opinion, which we already have. So let's examine my opponents case and counter them. C1: Correlation is not CausationMy opponent is trying to show a correlation between several factors: location and gun laws. However, correlation does not establish causation. As such, my opponents case is dead on arrival. Many factors goes into the crime rate, including but not limited to: poverty rates, child upbringing, avalible social services, ghettoization, policing, laws, enforcement, etc. .. Thus, my opponent at best has established a questionable cause fallacy. Because gun laws are already in effect and my opponent is challenging the status quo, I don't believe he has established enough to hit his BOP. C2: Cherry-Picked EvidenceMy opponent selects Vermont, and compares it to D. C. This is an odd comparison. D. C is unique in that it is not technically a state in the first place. Vermont boarders along Canada (which has crazy strict gun laws in and of itself), is one of the least populated states, it has one of the lowest poverty rates, and one of the highest rates of personal income in the country. An odd comparison when D. C Has ghettoization, is under supreme control of Congress rather than a Mayor and City Council, and is subject to national political issues rather than local, a frequent issue with D. C politics. D. C also has a higher unemployment rate overall, and less income with its people. Really, one would be safer to compare a steak to a watermelon, just nothing in common and kinda unfair. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...;http://en.wikipedia.org...;C3: Legal Owners are Not Harmed by Gun LawsMy opponents claim that "criminals will continue to get weapons on the black market illegally, will mean gun laws harm legal gun owners" makes several fundamental errors. For one, criminals are criminals because they break the law, by very definition of being a criminal. For this logic, shall we legalize murder because people will still kill people, despite it being against the law? The reason why we make laws like this, is because laws can be an extention of our values as a society, and does not always have to be about impacts. I for one, do not value people who are mentally unstable from operating a gun, for instance, regardless of the potential impacts it may have, even if we do assume my opponents assertion is even correct in the first place. Thing is, is that several organizations have pointed out that gun laws work. Which is why the U. S Government continues to impliment them. Gun laws can make potenital criminals reconsider their actions, not be able to obtain a gun in the first place, gives police enhanced powers to investigate potential gun issues, and a variety of other impacts. Even if in theory it didn't prevent criminals from getting a gun, gun issues are a huge burden on the healthcare industry in terms of costs annually. Harvard's School od Public Health has extensive studies on gun laws, due to the problems and impacts guns have on health. Sources: . http://smartgunlaws.org...;http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...;C4: Case Studies Proving Gun Laws Would Have Worked (Naval Yard Shooting, and Fort Hood Shooting)With the Naval Yard Shooter, the perputrator Aaron Elexis could have been stopped the entire time, should a simple background check used on him. Aaron thought he could actually talk to microwaves, cited for misconduct issues in the military, and even former shooting issues that turned out to be non-fatal. The fact that he was even in another former shooting incident should have resulted in a red flag being raised when he purchased a gun legally. Because the background check on him did not go far enough (not enough gun regulation), lives were lost as a result. Worse yet, even his own doctor was perscribing him medications out of fear that Aaron would harm someone. Nidal Malik Hasan, the perp of the Fort Hood Shooting was also known to frequent terrorist sites that preached extreemism, and promoted suicide bombings. Mainly, he was in touch with several known, and highly dangerous, Al-Qaeda terrorists. One of the most noted was his Imam Answir Al-Awlaki who died in Yemen as a result of a drone strike (youtube video is on him and is impact before becoming deceased). ;It becomes pretty clear that he was an extremist who gradually worked up the courage to do the shooting in the first place. Despite these suspected affiliations (later confirmed as a result of the crime), a simple background check could have also prevented this shooting. Alas, the lack of information in the background because the gun control laws didn't go far enough, also resulted in the deaths of many in the Forts' shooting. Nidal has since been sentenced to death as a result. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...;http://en.wikipedia.org...;C5: Lawlessness in Society, and Bad Gun OwnershipLets be honest here, every gun owner one meets is a self-reported "good gun owner". How many criminals are voluntarily going to give up their guns on the basis of being admittedly "bad gun owners"? I can't find any research on the matter, so I'm going to speculate none. As for the claim that gun laws will mean less being able to protect oneself. That's a slippery slope argument indicitive of a lawless society. Otherwise, why would we even need a police force if everyone can simply govern themselves? As the Harvard School of Public Health points out, most acts of "self defence" are actually illegal as judges have pointed out, even if the story is true and the law was followed, the claim of self defence won't normally hold up. Self defence laws are far more complex than what most people tend to think. Whats the difference between self defence in a situation with a gun owner shooting a criminal, and manslaughter? You have to use other means, and self defence is a last resort. With guns, you make it a first instead. But we don't go into a lawless society. We do expect citizens in distress to call police, and not utilize their guns. Worse yet, when guns were used, it was used as a baragining chip to the situation for more power, not to deescalate the incident. In other words, when more guns come out, the situiation got worse, not better most often times. And few criminals are actually ever shot. When they are, they normally are victims in the eyes of the law than actual perputrators. Source: . http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...;Thank you to my opponent for this debateYour turn bud! Good luck!

Hi. So I did a word find on my paragraph and I think I see the problem. My final sentence says " The main gun homicide happens from gangs in nig populated cities like Chicago." I made a spelling error. The word nig is supposed big. I put an instead of a B because I was typing really fast and on a laptop, keyboard B is right next to N. I was not racist. Read my profile. I am black. It doesn't matter what time Jefferson lived in. The quote shows why the amendment was made. The point was under gun control people have suffered more than they have not If the blacks had been armed than yes, yes they could. Need an example just look at the slave revolts that made Haiti independent from France. Another point was that the right to bear arms was to prevent dictators. Where is the proof the Stalin was popular with the people unlike Hitler he wasn't elected and the conditions in which Hitler came to power are not reflected in the USSR? No, I didn't drop the arguments from economics, black markets and practical uses. I said that I addressed them. To continue to argue from them with your ignorance would be circular reasoning and a waste of my time. Okay so on to your last standing argument nonsense. Can you give me your links to your sources I can't seem to find the data that confirms you stats? According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes International Homicide Statistics database the US between 1995 and 2015 has seen a continually drop in intentional homicides and is below the world average. Here is the link to my the data https://data.worldbank.org... In the United States. according to Politifact Mass shooting Fatalities per 100000 people are 0.15 while for Switzerland it is 0.17, Norway is 1.30 and Finland is 0.34. So no my data is not incorrect. This decrease has to do with both Gun possession and other factors. I am not sure of a decrease since 1791. I haven't looked into that data and I doubt that such data even exists. Need more examples? Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook. Need more examples? Do you get the correlation? Most school shootings, in fact, most homicides happen to unarmed defenceless populations and Thomas Jefferson saw that. No, the Suicide and gang homicide rates are because of issues beyond the gun. Such as bullying, Family violence, poverty etc. These are the issues that need to be addressed. The safety of countries such as the UK is subjective. The UK particularly London doesn't really seem to be safe. I argued how more legal gun ownership reduces crime rates. Check my sources and arguments Your remove the guns idea shows that you are ignorant of the facts. Gun Control doesn't work as you think it does and I gave the reasons why. Any sensible person who respects the facts would VOTE AGAINST this motion. For the Voters: My opponent is wrong in facts. My opponent fails to realize that the issue of Guns is beyond the Guns. That the second amendment must be upheld and that it is still reliable today. My opponent has ignored the data. Hasn't provided sources to back up their claims contrary to me. My opponent engages in ad hoc attacks due to a spelling error I have made. My opponent fails to realize that the US is not abnormal in gun deaths unlike what CNN and other media like Vox would like you to know. My opponent has not refuted my arguments such as how increased Legal Gun ownership lowers crime rates and so on. My opponent is ignorant on gun control issues and needs correction. In full summary. The US does not have an abnormal homicide problem. Gun issues are common in places where guns are prohibited. Guns are a civil right. Guns serve a practical purpose. The issues of gangs and suicide are so much deeper than guns themselves. The US does not reach the top 27 list on homicide rates while other developed countries like Japan are. Crime is down in America. In Europe, it is on the rise. In Mass shootings whatever definition you have. The Countries with higher Gun control such as Norway and Finland have higher fatalities. Also, some shootings are actually not shootings but other crimes such as terrorism. Gun control does not work as well as people think it does. The main people pushing it are uneducated on this subject. People such as Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg. If you have COMMON SENSE PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION. Thank you.

To start I will defend my previous statements. The con has listed a few countries which have implemented a complete ban on gun ownership by civilians, however the con only gives very generalised statements about each country and does not show any statistics to support their claim. In England and Wales there has been an almost complete ban on owning firearms, statistics show that during 2008 - 2009 there were 39 fatal injuries involving firearms. This is compared to statistics form America in 2008 showing 12,000 gun related homicides. http://www.economist.com... Clearly banning guns does reduce the amount of gun related homicides that occur in the country. The entire point of gun legislation is to make is harder for criminals to harm civilians. According to the statistics quoted by the con in 2010 over 8,500 deaths were caused by guns. This means that if guns were banned in American 8,500 lives would have been saved in 2010. Surely this is the perfect example of gun bans making it harder for criminals to harm civilians. Yes I agree the citizens of the USA do have a right to defend themselves, but at what point do we say that self defence has become pre-emptive attack. Is it acceptable to shoot a person who is intruding in your house. If so than I am I allowed to shoot someone who comes over for tea but than refuses to leave when I ask them. There is a reason why people are not given the death sentence for breaking and entering, and that is because they do not deserve it. So why is it acceptable for someone to shoot an intruder. Looking closely at the gun related homicides that occur in the USA there is one main point that stands out. Statistically if you are a women and you are shot by a man, it is 3 times more likely that the man who shot you was your husband or intimate acquaintances of yours than someone you didn't know. http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org... This suggests that you should be more worried about your spouse rather than someone random on the street. This also shows the startling amount of times that guns are being used by civilians during domestic house fights. It isn't hard to imagine husband and wife having some sort of argument things get a bit heated, the husband (or wife) reaches into the draw and pulls out a gun and shoots their partner dead. A person in a temporary moment of insanity and anger shooting their partner because it was just too easy. In a country where guns are banned that gun would never have even been brought into the equation. The argument that "People own guns for reasons other then self protection, including simply firing at targets or for hunting" is true. However, there has been a massive increase in bow hunters in the past few years because of the extra challenge it provides. Also since most people buy their meat from the shops, hunting isn't really a major necessity these days. 1982 was quite a long time ago. Guns have evolved a lot over the past 30 years and so has the way that criminals operate. These days almost all criminals who own guns are fully licensed, this means that there is no difference between a criminal owning a gun and a civilian owning a gun. This makes it very difficult for any sort of action to be taken against the criminals who own guns, because there actually has to be some sort of crime linked to their gun. It is sort of like you have two sides the bad guys with the guns and the good guys with the guns, they are both shooting at each other and it becomes hard to see the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. Chances are all the guns were bought legally, the only difference is the intent. The good guys only want guns for protection, the bad guys want guns so they can shoot the good guys. Quite often, as I stated before, guns that were for 'self protection' end up being used in domestic murders, which means that sometimes the good guys become bad guys. Now all of a sudden there are more bad guys than good guys, but everyone is still claiming that they only want guns for protection. See how confusing everything gets. The reason why 'Banning handguns has proven to not be effective here in the US' is because of a negative reaction towards the new ban. Homicide rates increased because people who owned handguns that never left the house, suddenly came out in silent protest against the new ban by actually carrying their gun around in the streets. This lead to more confrontations therefore more gun related deaths. All the ban needs is a bit more time for it to sink into the residents. Police officers need to step up their game because now they can remove the handguns and charge their owners even before any shots are fired. Now the con has come out with the age old statement that is our constitutional right to bear arms. It must be noted with this argument that the second amendment was passed back in 1791. Back then those guns could only fire one shot before they had to be reloaded, and fully automatic weapons were not even a concept yet. I am sure that the writers of the second amendment never imagined in the future what our arms would actually look like. Yes I do agree that the second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms, but I think it is only fair for them to own the guns that the writers of the second amendment assumed that everyone would have, that is of course muskets and other guns from 1791. I think it is perfectly clear that the benefits of having a ban on guns far out way the negatives.

"but some laws are out dated such as right to bare arms so I think that the U.S. should change some of it's laws". People should be allowed to bear arms, legs and tumies. People also should be allowed to bear firearms. This is not a gun debate. If you want to debate guns, then that's a different debate.If they are protesting AIDS, then they can reduce AIDS by eliminating homosexuality, but I digress, just like you do.It disturbed people but if they didn't like the noise, they could close their windows, which is what they probably did anyways since it was Late November during the protest and therefore, it was cold outside. As a result, they probably wouldn't hear the protest much if they were inside the apartment buildings.Writing notes or writing an editorial is one way to protest. But protest is also an alternative method to express someone's ideology. Also, a letter to the president won't effect your community much. However, a protest can.

Before I respond to your arguments, I would like to clear up any misconceptions over how new legislation would work. This new legislation is not as simple as one individual deciding whether someone has a good reason to own a gun. There are multiple checks and balances which would be used in order to determine a reasonable case for gun ownership. This system exists and works successfully in many European countries where certain individuals can own guns. My proposal could easily be enacted and would be functional. Now I really want to focus on the concept of the 2nd amendment itself. Saying that the 2nd amendment "must be upheld" without an explanation as to why is completely irrational. As I explained, the 2nd amendment had a historical context of immense political instability however it is not relevant for modern society. I also described that the constitution is not sacre-saint. The constitution is not like the 10 commandments. It has been amended so many times. In fact, even amendments to it have been repealed like the 18th amendment. If there is no relevancy to the 2nd amendment then it makes no sense to preserve it. I need an explanation as to why the 2nd amendment is needed in today's context not just a catchy sound-bite of "it's my right". To my mind (and to many other progressive Americans), the 2nd amendment is more of a privilege than a right. Next, although to an extent, the world seems to be becoming more at risk of war, this is a complete exaggeration. Arguably, all countries are subject to this threat just like the USA. However, most other countries use their armed forces and not their civilians to defend the country in the enormous unlikelihood of an attack on their soil. The reality is that the USA is not going to be invaded and even if it was armed civilians are not going to be able to hold off an invasion. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely, considering the nature of the American system, that a dictator will seize power. What is more likely is that hundreds of kids will die in school shootings in the years to come. Also, how on earth would civilians stop a dictator? Do civilians have tanks? Do civilians have artillery, warships, chemical weapons, fighter aircraft or nuclear weapons? I find the idea that a armed militia of American civilians with rifles could hold off the US armed forces. I do find it likely though that those same weapons could kill thousands of innocent people every year. If people want personal safety they should call the police. Furthermore, they will not need guns anyway since the attackers would not be able to get guns in the first place. In the unlikelihood that someone attacks them with a gun (which in all other countries is very unlikely), most people run away even if they are armed. Gun attacks are terrifying and most people do not fight back. This was certainly true in the case of the recent shooting in Florida. The next big point that needs to be tackled is the idea that guns are not what is causing gun deaths. Guns are directly responsible for the deaths of many more people as they are efficient killing machines. Compared to things like blunt objects guns kill far more people at a faster rate. On that basis, it makes sense to ban something which results in killing many more people. Furthermore, as I have already described in great length, blunt objects and cars have so many practical uses. Whereas, guns provide little practical use and thus when you consider the harm that they do to our society it makes sense to ban something which doesn't have enough usefulness to justify its existence. Now, of course evil people are the true cause of murders due to gun violence and of course mental health is the main cause. However, fighting these problems, although definitely a noble and good thing to do, does not go far enough to stop killings. If the US government could cure all mentally ill people of their problems and effectively deal with all people with bad intentions then I would absolutely advocate for the right of all Americans to own guns since there would be no dangerous people to use them. However, this is a totally unachievable goal. You cannot cure all evil people - this is an impossible goal. Thus, alternative ways need to be considered in order to stop the slaughter of so many innocent Americans. Guns undeniably cause more deaths because of guns and this is totally supported by the evidence which I cited in my previous response. Therefore, banning guns is the way to achieve our goal of making America a safer and less murderous country. Since, as I have explained, guns serve little value to ordinary people and they are actually rarely used to fight crime, banning them is reasonable as they are so unnecessary. This is not the same for cars. If cars were banned (of course people could walk) our economy would massively suffer and our lives would become much more impractical and difficult therefore, they are essential to our daily lives and so depriving us of such important things is a step too far. Although, maybe one day, if public transport is good enough and considering the damage to the environment that cars do, cars could rightly be abolished. Now onto the black market. To equate an underground gun market to an illegal drugs market is to make an extremely disingenuous argument. There are huge distinctions which need to be made. Firstly, drugs are highly addictive whereas there are no addictions to shooting guns. Therefore, in the event of abolishing guns, one would not find millions of gun-addicts rushing to their local dealer to purchase 1kg of ammunition to feed their habit. It is simply not the same situation. To justify my claim that the black market will be minute, I will provide you some examples of countries who have a model of gun control that I would advocate for the USA. In the UK, you are banned from buying any firearms unless, as I have advocated, you have a very good reason for owning it (i.e. for your job such as a livestock farmer or a vet). In the UK, there is a black market for guns. However, most gangs are not powerful enough to obtain firearms and so instead use knives and other weapons (unsurprisingly they end up killing fewer people with these less deadly weapons). Some very dangerous gangs do have access to these weapons and carry handguns and sometimes semi-automatic rifles. The gun homicide rate in England and Wales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.After a mass shooting at a school in 1996, the British government pursued legislative bans on assault rifles and handguns and tightened background checks for other types of firearms. As of 2013, a total of 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition were taken off British streets. Military-style weapons and most handguns were banned. Moreover, the black market is very small. There are so many examples of this from around the world. What is the same everywhere is that when guns are banned, there are (shockingly) less guns - which (amazingly) leads to fewer people dying. The idea of a huge black market being worse than the status quo is completely false and has absolutely no statistical based evidence for it. Trust in the countless evidence from all around the world that a black market would exist but most importantly it would be very, very small. Crucially, the black market would be unfortunate but allowable since the level of gun violence now is so much worse. So, to conclude: the 2nd amendment is not untouchable - it is a fallible and repealable right which, considering its irrelevance in today's society, can be and should be repealed and replaced with new and reasonable legislation. Our rights do not come from nowhere - they have logical reasons for their existence and thus, if those arguments no longer stack up, those "rights" (or should we really say privileges) can and should be removed. Secondly, guns allow evil and ill people to kill people in much faster and more devastating ways and thus are unique in their wholly violent use. Guns are furthermore not essential to our human existence. I would ban cars if you could argue that cars are so useless (like guns) that there is a good reason to ban them; but cars have massive practical uses. This is not a contradiction. Therefore, banning guns does reduce gun deaths and is reasonable. Finally, a black market in guns would exist but it would be small according to all the evidence that we can see from other countries. Most normal gun users would not be able to get guns and thus only very serious groups would have guns. But guess what; serious criminals already have guns so, what is the difference? Overall less people will have guns and thus less people will die. I only have to convince you of 2 things: 1) Guns do not serve a purpose, significant enough, to warrant their existence when they conflict with the right of our people to live in a safe society. 2) When we ban guns less people will die I believe I have sufficiently explained and justified both of these premises. I have, thus, a strong inductive argument for banning these useless murder-machines. At the end of the day, I do not have a problem with a responsible and good American owning a gun. But when the privilege of that individual to own a gun for their own needs conflicts with the lives of children, heartbreakingly murdered in places which should be considered safe, I am absolutely unapologetic for my firm belief that I am willing to infringe upon the right of that person to save the right of many other people to their own lives. I don't want to see a country, so amazing and great in so many ways, being the same country in which almost every year we wake up to another story of a preventable mass shooting. I don't want anyone to have to wake up to that anymore. I want change. I dearly hope I can convince at least one person of this.


Question: Should Individuals be Granted the Right to Concealed Carry?

July Tournament
C1) Suicides and Gun Storage
A) Gun Storage
Research from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center has shown that a significant number of gun owners store their firearms loaded and unlocked, with gun training sometimes leading to an increased likelihood of such storage practices. A survey of 400 parents with firearms in the home revealed that over 20% had a loaded firearm, and 8% stored at least one firearm loaded and unlocked, with households containing teenagers more likely to engage in unsafe storage practices. It is estimated that more than 1.6 million U.S. children live in homes with loaded, unlocked firearms, which poses a significant threat to their safety. Easy access to firearms by teenagers can lead to tragic outcomes, including showing off the weapon at school, using it to harm classmates, or committing suicide. This access also poses risks for individuals with mental disabilities, those under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or in the midst of marital disputes, as well as for young children who may mistake the weapon for a toy.

B) Firearms and Suicide
Studies have found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide, regardless of gender or age. Gun owners are three times more likely to choose suicide as their method of death compared to non-gun owners. In 2010, firearms were used in over half of the 38,364 suicide cases, with a lethality rate of about 85%. While a ban on firearms may not decrease the number of people attempting suicide, it can save lives by reducing the lethality of suicide attempts. Alternative methods such as poison, cutting, overdose, and hanging have significantly lower fatality rates, ranging from 2.38% for poison to 75% for hanging. Many suicide attempts are cries for help, and surviving an attempt allows the individual to seek treatment and potentially avoid future attempts.

C2) Firearm Accidents
In 2007, the U.S. experienced 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings, with children under 15 in the U.S. nine times more likely to die from gun accidents than children in other developed countries. Despite the rigorous training required for a firearms license, accidents continue to occur, with about 200 Americans visiting emergency rooms daily due to gunshot wounds. The ease of use of firearms contributes to the high rate of accidents, as they require only a trigger pull, unlike poison or

It says in the constitution in the second amendment that we have the right to own guns. Gun control does not protect the citizens from being shot, the government wont step in to help. You don't have a gun to protect your self you won't live long. Look at Washington D.C, they banned guns. The crime rate is really high. But this is only one of the cities. Why United States right now has less crime rate than other communist countries is because we can defend ourselves. You can't really fight a criminal with your fist, you won't win against a gun. The government wants to be in control, it wants people to rely on them for everything, protection and other stuff. The guns are also not the problem. It's the person who pulls the trigger. The government is storing lots of ammunition so that people cant get to it. An example is that every time every store gets 22 rifle/pistol ammunition it is all gone in about an hour of arrival. There has been many protests, the government is starting to get scared so they decided if they take away the ammunition nobody will be able to threaten them. The government can care less about the people. The way the founding fathers wanted this country to run is that the states should have the power and the government is there just to make sure nothing gets out of control. But right now it's totally opposite. the states depend on the government, and they feel if the government goes down they will be in despair and wouldn't know what to do. Every year the government take more power than what it was intended to have. This government we have now should back down and give the states control.

Well all have the right to self defense and a gun is protection if you know how to use it in the right way.

So the debate boils down to these three topics: 1) Is the Constitution living or not? 2) Does the original wording of the 2nd amendment necessitate an individual right? 3) Has my opponent proven an individual right is necessary today? 1) Living Constitution Ok, let's break down my opponent's arguments bit by bit ---First, he says (roughly paraphrasing) "Supreme Court is not always right" This does nothing to support neither your or mine points because the cases I was referring to were cases clarifying the constitution. Every time any court makes a decision dealing with constitutional rights, they're reinterpreting the constitution, and thus, making the constitution "living". If the constitution was "not living", then we would not need such a complex court system. EVERY TIME A COURT MAKES A DECISION DEALING WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THEY'RE MAKING THE CONSTITUTION LIVING! ---"Brenner quote shows nothing" If a Supreme Court Justice says something, it should be valued. Scalia merely sticks to a strict constructionist view of the constitution; however, he did not say it was "dead". His personal philosophy is also very ironic, since every time he's making a decision about constitutional rights, he's making the constitution living. Underview: My Opponent makes the claim that such cases that define the constitution such as Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education are showing that the constitution is "Confusing". But where does one draw the line between Confusing and Reinterpretation? Is not clarifying the confusion essentially equal to reinterpreting the constitution? The answer is simple: They are. My opponent cannot disprove the fact that the constitution is a living entity, being changed every day by court decision. 2) Premises in a syllogism are mutually exclusive, thus, attacking premise 1 does nothing to premise 2. Although these two premises may be linked, invalidating premise 1 only makes the conclusion null; however, the living constitution is a very real thing. Furthermore, my opponent has agreed with me that THE CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED. Why you should vote for me: My opponent has essentially dropped the second premise. I believe that I have clearly demonstrated that the Constitution is living, thus my syllogism is valid and should justify a vote for me. Question 2:Does the original wording of the 2nd amendment necessitate an individual right? There are several holes in my opponent's logic. ---First he makes the extrapolation: " They have the right so that, if they wish, they can join a militia." This is the crux of my opponent's case perhaps. Does the 2nd amendment make gun rights justify a militia, or militia justify the right to own guns? Here, my opponent contradicts himself. First, he states that the ablative construction makes the militia the main reason to own guns, THEN, he makes the statement quoted above. This is an illogical leap. No where in the 2nd amendment does it imply or say gun rights justify a militia, but it says militias justify gun rights (as argued earlier). ---He then makes an analogy to the 1st amendment This is an unjust analogy. First, the 1st amendment does not only protect anti-government speech. It forbids the government from censoring anything, so your extrapolation that "most speech is protected under the first amendment" was actually WORDED into the 1st amendment. Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment is very restrictive due to the ablative construction of it, making militias justify gun rights, not gun rights justifying militas. ---Justification of an indvidiual right My opponent claims that "the PEOPLE" somehow gives EVERYONE the right to own guns. I shall make 3 arguments against it. i) The People and the Militias were indistingishable back in those days. Everyone was expected to serve in the militia in order to protect their communities. However, since the conditions have changed since then, this interpretation no longer makes sense. ii) I ask a very basic question again: WHY INCLUDE THE PHRASE DEALING WITH MILITIAS IF IT WAS MEANT TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT? iii) As stated earlier, the conditions have CHANGED, no longer are we threatened by the British or the Indians, we're now safe on the home front, thus the original justifications have now changed. Question 3: Has my opponent proven an individual right is necessary today? Simply said, he has not. He has given two reasons, both of which are inadequate, to justify this claim: 1) A Law is a Law and 2) "The People" = individual right Number 2 was rebutted earlier, and #1 was rebutted in my first premise. The Constitution changes, and the "The People"'s meanings have changed. Voting Issues, remember the burden of the proof is on the affirmative. I said repeatedly that the an individual right is not supported by the 2nd amendment due to the restrictive clause, and I believe that my opponent has not proved his point sufficiently, thus a vote for the negative is in order. Furthermore, the constitution is changing everyday, thus taking away my opponent's main arguments.

the state should not allow people to carrie guns legal or not people are crazy they will shoot some body just because they got a gun registered or not I don't think so

I would first like to point out that my opponent has failed to provide any constitutional amendment only provided a rationale for one that is, frankly, deeply flawed. If my opponent would like to provide one I would gladly address it. My opponent proposes a gun registry. this would not, however, be a constitutional amendment or addendum. you also are already required in most states (if not all) to have a firearm license. Even if it already wasn't required, it still wouldn't be a constitutional amendment. My opponent brings us gang members that carry guns for "cool points" I would ask my opponent to clarify exactly how he would suggest we determine who is trying to get "cool points" and who wants a firearm for more legitimate purposes. My opponent argues that we should not have people carrying guns because it can draw suspicion. This is not a reason to amend the constitution. We should not have the government remove our right to self preservation because people are suspicious of people who carry guns (which I don't believe most people even are.) To conclude, my opponents arguments are deeply and fundamentally flawed, and he should provide a proposed amendment so he can fulfill his BOP that a constitutional amendment is necessary.

Hi. So I did a word find on my paragraph and I think I see the problem. My final sentence says " The main gun homicide happens from gangs in nig populated cities like Chicago." I made a spelling error. The word nig is supposed big. I put an instead of a B because I was typing really fast and on a laptop, keyboard B is right next to N. I was not racist. Read my profile. I am black. It doesn't matter what time Jefferson lived in. The quote shows why the amendment was made. The point was under gun control people have suffered more than they have not If the blacks had been armed than yes, yes they could. Need an example just look at the slave revolts that made Haiti independent from France. Another point was that the right to bear arms was to prevent dictators. Where is the proof the Stalin was popular with the people unlike Hitler he wasn't elected and the conditions in which Hitler came to power are not reflected in the USSR? No, I didn't drop the arguments from economics, black markets and practical uses. I said that I addressed them. To continue to argue from them with your ignorance would be circular reasoning and a waste of my time. Okay so on to your last standing argument nonsense. Can you give me your links to your sources I can't seem to find the data that confirms you stats? According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes International Homicide Statistics database the US between 1995 and 2015 has seen a continually drop in intentional homicides and is below the world average. Here is the link to my the data https://data.worldbank.org... In the United States. according to Politifact Mass shooting Fatalities per 100000 people are 0.15 while for Switzerland it is 0.17, Norway is 1.30 and Finland is 0.34. So no my data is not incorrect. This decrease has to do with both Gun possession and other factors. I am not sure of a decrease since 1791. I haven't looked into that data and I doubt that such data even exists. Need more examples? Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook. Need more examples? Do you get the correlation? Most school shootings, in fact, most homicides happen to unarmed defenceless populations and Thomas Jefferson saw that. No, the Suicide and gang homicide rates are because of issues beyond the gun. Such as bullying, Family violence, poverty etc. These are the issues that need to be addressed. The safety of countries such as the UK is subjective. The UK particularly London doesn't really seem to be safe. I argued how more legal gun ownership reduces crime rates. Check my sources and arguments Your remove the guns idea shows that you are ignorant of the facts. Gun Control doesn't work as you think it does and I gave the reasons why. Any sensible person who respects the facts would VOTE AGAINST this motion. For the Voters: My opponent is wrong in facts. My opponent fails to realize that the issue of Guns is beyond the Guns. That the second amendment must be upheld and that it is still reliable today. My opponent has ignored the data. Hasn't provided sources to back up their claims contrary to me. My opponent engages in ad hoc attacks due to a spelling error I have made. My opponent fails to realize that the US is not abnormal in gun deaths unlike what CNN and other media like Vox would like you to know. My opponent has not refuted my arguments such as how increased Legal Gun ownership lowers crime rates and so on. My opponent is ignorant on gun control issues and needs correction. In full summary. The US does not have an abnormal homicide problem. Gun issues are common in places where guns are prohibited. Guns are a civil right. Guns serve a practical purpose. The issues of gangs and suicide are so much deeper than guns themselves. The US does not reach the top 27 list on homicide rates while other developed countries like Japan are. Crime is down in America. In Europe, it is on the rise. In Mass shootings whatever definition you have. The Countries with higher Gun control such as Norway and Finland have higher fatalities. Also, some shootings are actually not shootings but other crimes such as terrorism. Gun control does not work as well as people think it does. The main people pushing it are uneducated on this subject. People such as Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg. If you have COMMON SENSE PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION. Thank you.

To start I will defend my previous statements. The con has listed a few countries which have implemented a complete ban on gun ownership by civilians, however the con only gives very generalised statements about each country and does not show any statistics to support their claim. In England and Wales there has been an almost complete ban on owning firearms, statistics show that during 2008 - 2009 there were 39 fatal injuries involving firearms. This is compared to statistics form America in 2008 showing 12,000 gun related homicides. http://www.economist.com... Clearly banning guns does reduce the amount of gun related homicides that occur in the country. The entire point of gun legislation is to make is harder for criminals to harm civilians. According to the statistics quoted by the con in 2010 over 8,500 deaths were caused by guns. This means that if guns were banned in American 8,500 lives would have been saved in 2010. Surely this is the perfect example of gun bans making it harder for criminals to harm civilians. Yes I agree the citizens of the USA do have a right to defend themselves, but at what point do we say that self defence has become pre-emptive attack. Is it acceptable to shoot a person who is intruding in your house. If so than I am I allowed to shoot someone who comes over for tea but than refuses to leave when I ask them. There is a reason why people are not given the death sentence for breaking and entering, and that is because they do not deserve it. So why is it acceptable for someone to shoot an intruder. Looking closely at the gun related homicides that occur in the USA there is one main point that stands out. Statistically if you are a women and you are shot by a man, it is 3 times more likely that the man who shot you was your husband or intimate acquaintances of yours than someone you didn't know. http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org... This suggests that you should be more worried about your spouse rather than someone random on the street. This also shows the startling amount of times that guns are being used by civilians during domestic house fights. It isn't hard to imagine husband and wife having some sort of argument things get a bit heated, the husband (or wife) reaches into the draw and pulls out a gun and shoots their partner dead. A person in a temporary moment of insanity and anger shooting their partner because it was just too easy. In a country where guns are banned that gun would never have even been brought into the equation. The argument that "People own guns for reasons other then self protection, including simply firing at targets or for hunting" is true. However, there has been a massive increase in bow hunters in the past few years because of the extra challenge it provides. Also since most people buy their meat from the shops, hunting isn't really a major necessity these days. 1982 was quite a long time ago. Guns have evolved a lot over the past 30 years and so has the way that criminals operate. These days almost all criminals who own guns are fully licensed, this means that there is no difference between a criminal owning a gun and a civilian owning a gun. This makes it very difficult for any sort of action to be taken against the criminals who own guns, because there actually has to be some sort of crime linked to their gun. It is sort of like you have two sides the bad guys with the guns and the good guys with the guns, they are both shooting at each other and it becomes hard to see the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. Chances are all the guns were bought legally, the only difference is the intent. The good guys only want guns for protection, the bad guys want guns so they can shoot the good guys. Quite often, as I stated before, guns that were for 'self protection' end up being used in domestic murders, which means that sometimes the good guys become bad guys. Now all of a sudden there are more bad guys than good guys, but everyone is still claiming that they only want guns for protection. See how confusing everything gets. The reason why 'Banning handguns has proven to not be effective here in the US' is because of a negative reaction towards the new ban. Homicide rates increased because people who owned handguns that never left the house, suddenly came out in silent protest against the new ban by actually carrying their gun around in the streets. This lead to more confrontations therefore more gun related deaths. All the ban needs is a bit more time for it to sink into the residents. Police officers need to step up their game because now they can remove the handguns and charge their owners even before any shots are fired. Now the con has come out with the age old statement that is our constitutional right to bear arms. It must be noted with this argument that the second amendment was passed back in 1791. Back then those guns could only fire one shot before they had to be reloaded, and fully automatic weapons were not even a concept yet. I am sure that the writers of the second amendment never imagined in the future what our arms would actually look like. Yes I do agree that the second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms, but I think it is only fair for them to own the guns that the writers of the second amendment assumed that everyone would have, that is of course muskets and other guns from 1791. I think it is perfectly clear that the benefits of having a ban on guns far out way the negatives.

"I only addressed what I wanted at that point, and I didn't want to address all of it. " ---- this is not an argument. Your statement that "Guns do not kill people; the ill in the head who hold the gun and shoot people. I don't think the gun pulls its own trigger. " ---- does not disprove or in any way contradict my statement; I agree with it. "Going back to my statement, taking guns away will not make anything safer. Look at Washington D.C. That city is one of the cities in the US that has the highest crime level. "---- No guns would make things much safer, think about it: no sniping, no instant kills, no standoffs. Why do you mention Washington DC's crime levels? Even if the crime levels got worse directly after gun control was initiated, that doesn't prove that gun control was the cause. "That"s why you go through gun training before you get a license to own a gun. Some people are idiots, and they deserve to die if they are being irresponsible with a gun. You can"t save stupid from stupid." Not everyone has to be "trained" before they can own a gun. If you're implying that they should, I must remind you that that is gun control. Even if someone is forced to take "training", that doesn't insure that they won't be foolish. Besides the fact that your statement about stupid people was rude, I'l take your word for the fact that the stupid deserve to die. If someone is stupid in the handling of a gun, that doesn't mean that it will be the stupid person who will die. It's quite likely that others would die instead, or in addition to the stupid person. Once again, your next statement fails to argue or disprove what I just said, in fact, it's part of the point that I was making. You said that you carry a gun (paraphrased ;-)) with you all of the time, you are one of the few paranoid who do, my argument still applies to most people. About the safety, turning it off is not instant unless you've got a good deal of experience with that gun. There is no such thing as a gun which has a safety that turn off upon pulling the trigger; a gun like that would be the equivalent of a gun without safety. In case I need to remind you,wearing a gun without a safety mechanism tuned on is very hazardous. As explained in Wikipedia, "During the Tokugawa period in Japan, starting in the 17th century, the government imposed very restrictive controls on the small number of gunsmiths in the nation, thereby ensuring the almost total prohibition of firearms.[56] Japan, in the postwar period, has had gun regulation which is strict in principle. Gun licensing is required, and is heavily regulated by the National Police Agency of Japan. The weapons law begins by stating "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords", and very few exceptions are allowed.[57] The only types of firearms which a Japanese citizen may acquire are rifles or shotguns. Sportsmen are permitted to possess rifles or shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.[58] Without a license, a Japanese citizen may not even hold a gun in his or her hands." And as a former debater (imabench) in favor of gun freedom on this site mentioned, Japan is fairly stable.

"Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership," said the NRA in explaining why private citizens should continue to be allowed to own guns. It is true that all of the important things in one's life need to be protected. If we want to continue to defend ourselves then don't adopt the proposition stating that no one has the right to own guns except members of the police and military. I'm representing the negative side in this debate. I will provide you with facts that will prove that the status quo is working for our country, and guns should stay available for private citizens. The reasons that citizens of the United States should keep being able to own guns are, for protection and defense, for hunting and other recreational activities, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, it is in the constitution, and many people work in the gun industry. Our first reason is protection and defense. Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home. Studies show that having a handgun present at home stop many burglaries. In our own state, there was a tragic incident this summer. It happened in Cheshire where three innocent citizens were murdered. It is not guaranteed that if there was a handgun at this household that this wouldn't have happened. But, if there was, these people may have had another chance. Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection. That's almost ï¿½ of gun owners who only keep a gun at their house for protection and self-defense. United States citizens living in urban areas of our country need handguns badly. As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem. According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year. In the majority of these cases, no shot is fired. The Journal of the Medicine Association of Georgia says that as many as 75 lives are protected for every life lost by a gun. Protection and self defense are just one of the many reasons why it should remain legal for private citizens to own guns. Our second reason is for hunting and other recreational purposes. Hunting has and will continue to be an American culture. Most people consider hunting and target shooting a sport. If guns were banned then it wouldn't be fair to the many United States citizens who participate in these activities. Hunting has been an American tradition since around the time of the Ice Age. Hunting was how the Native Americans survived. It is estimated that about 30,113,994 people in our country hunt. Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition. Our third reason is that banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun. Therefore, criminals would still have hidden guns. Also, someone who is willing to commit a crime won't follow any new laws. If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used. Also, new weapons may be created. As you can see, if guns were to be banned, crime and murder rates wouldn't necessarily decrease. Our fourth reason is that we have a Constitutional right to own guns. Our founding fathers decided on ten important amendments, and the second amendment has to do with owning guns. The second amendment says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This clearly states that private citizens living in our country have a right to bear arms. The constitution has been around since 1789. If these laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country. This is another reason why guns should not be banned. Our fifth and final reason is many people work in the gun industry. As it is tons of Americans have been losing their jobs over the last several years. If guns were banned than all the people who's work has to do with guns would immediately lose their jobs. Our country cannot afford for more jobs to be lost this way. This is one more reason of why guns should not be banned. In conclusion, we believe that the status quo is working for our country and guns shouldn't be banned. Our reasons for keeping guns available for private citizens are, for protection and self-defense, for recreational activities and hunting, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, this right is in the Constitution, and many citizens work in the gun industry. As you can see by the information above, guns should not be banned from private citizens. We will sum all of this information up with a true, significant quote we have all heard a few times in our life, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

If you actually read the U.S Constitution you would know that the right to bear arms means carrying a firearm. Killing a bear has nothing to do with this unless you hunt, and in that case people do have the right to hunt. I do understand that if a specific species is at risk, hunting is not appropriate. Otherwise hunting and shooting a gun is a perfectly acceptable hobby; many people make a living hunting and feeding their family if necessary. So once again I do not see why it is so horrible to own a gun, and why to this day they think it is necessary to take away our right to bear arms.