8D: 2nd Amendment- Right to Bear Arms
Question: “Should Americans have the right to own a gun with proper restrictions?”
Yes they should be allowed
Side Score: 32
|
 |
No, they should not
Side Score: 23
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/ "First: There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls. However, there is no way to extinguish this supply of guns. It would be constitutionally suspect and politically impossible to confiscate hundreds of millions of weapons. You can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, and guns will still be brought there." "AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply." As stated above in the article, gun violence will never be diminished, and banning guns is not the way to try decrease it. Also, gun violence increased when guns were banned as the citizens could not defend themselves and criminals could easily illegally access them. This would obviously lead to any shootings resulting in higher deaths? Side: Yes they should be allowed
You are agreeing with us then: "The existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls." You just said that having so many guns brings more violence and more homicides!!! Side: No, they should not
Can you actually read the article please? If you continued reading the article, you would've seen that it states banning guns is not the way to limit gun violence, however due to your incapability to read an article, you singled out a paragraph and could not see the message coming across. Side: Yes they should be allowed
Guns do kill people, but is that the only weapon to kill people? As stated in this article, knives kill 5 times more people then rifles kill people. Knives and other cutting instrument killed 1490 victims in 2013, but in contrast 285 victims died because of firearms. Side: Yes they should be allowed
http://listverse.com/2013/12/12/ Please read through the first point listed in that article. It says that guns were caused to be banned by a shooting massacre where 16 young children were shot dead. When the guns were banned, the crime rate was 1.12 per 100,000. In 2010, the crime rates have slight risen to 1.23. 1.23 is what has been reported, but lots of people are saying that there have been many cases of under-reporting of many crimes. Side: Yes they should be allowed
Today we will be talking about the second amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America, the right to bear arms. It has been long debated and will continue to be, however he hope that we can change your perspective on the matter. We believe it is a fundamental individual right and one granted to us by George Washington, who said “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself, they are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence”. As Jesus once said “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Trust Jesus. What he says here is the importance of possessing a weapon, even if it is at the expense of your ‘cloak’. This represents our first point, self defence. The safety of American citizens is crucial. At times, they have to protect themselves, if they have a weapon which they’re authorised to have, they have a higher chance of staying safe. Furthermore, it was a right given to us by our Founding Fathers and one we should respect. Abuse of this right can be controlled through further examination of the buyer. Also, a lot of people feel pleasure when hunting, so they enjoy it with their own gun, or at a shooting range. Thank you. Side: Yes they should be allowed
2
points
Having a gun in homes promotes that the citizens take the law into their own hands. Also, statistics clearly go against the fact that majority of gun usage in the United States is self-defense. As stated in the opening statement, For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.” Side: No, they should not
If guns were banned, criminals would still find a way to access firearms illegally. The murders and assaults would still occur. In possession of a gun, a citizen has a chance of protecting themselves? It in now way promotes a citizen taking a law into their hands, it promotes their chances to SURVIVE. Side: Yes they should be allowed
In what way is self-defense promoting citizens taking the law into their own hands? All they are doing is protecting themselves, and saving their lives. And as you stated, for every time a gun is used in self-defense in a home, there are 7 assaults or murders. The murders don't necessarily have to be caused by guns. 11 suicide attempts are connected to the 2nd Amendment in no way at all, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home could not be blamed on the government, but uneducated gun users. Also, let's not forget the fact that a gun still is being used for self-defense, and if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist, another innocent life would have been taken. Side: Yes they should be allowed
You guys said that you can use guns for hunting, many times cases of such unfortunateness arrive. Proving that the second Amendment should be band. A story was told about a father losing her daughter, while he was hunting. In Georgia, Cassie Culpepper, 11, was riding in the back of a pickup with her 12-year-old brother and two other children. Her brother started playing with a pistol his father had lent him to scare coyotes. Believing he had removed all the bullets, he pointed the pistol at his sister and squeezed the trigger. It fired, and blood poured from Cassie’s mouth. Side: No, they should not
Another mother lost her son by a gun shoot out. Jodi Sandoval is a mother, she has a story that states her son being killed. Her son's friend took out the gun, from his pocket and pointed at him, the friend pulled the trigger and killed Jodi’s son. Side: No, they should not
Accidents such as these only occur because of bad and irresponsible parenting. If the children had access to a gun inside of a home, that leads us to question the owner of the gun, not the right itself? Why would a sane man give an 11 year old child a loaded gun inside of a closed, compact environment such as a car? This was an accident, and one caused by foolishness rather than the right. Side: Yes they should be allowed
Ari, I am not sure if you have read the entire article or not, but according to this link, the 12-year-old brother did not take the gun to scare coyotes, but he just decided to sneak out a gun that his Sheriff-father owned to play with, as he thought it was unloaded. Side: Yes they should be allowed
Even self defense has a limit: Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. Side: No, they should not
People with firearms are at risk of being shot. Based from the study conducted by Charles Branas PhD, he said that those persons who are carrying a weapon for defending themselves are 4.5 times more at risk to be shot in an assault compared to those crime victims who don’t have a gun. It means that a gun might not be the most efficient and reliable type of self-protection. It is also believed that most people with weapons are not trained adequately to use them. Side: No, they should not
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/19/ According to the this CNN article above, self defence is crucial and is rare because people haven't been educated that the right to bear arms refers to everyone eligible for their own safety. As it states, "Suppose the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary who was killed lunging at the gunman was instead holding a firearm and was well trained to use it. Would the result have been different? Or suppose you had been in that school when the killer entered, would you have preferred to be armed?" This can refer to any mass shooting, should the police not be able to arrive in time, if people could shoot the gunman, the shootings and victims could be strongly limited. Side: Yes they should be allowed
2
points
http://www.safewise.com/resources/ According to that website, 74% of criminals choose not to invade a house when the owners are there, as they fear the owner will have a gun to defend himself. Keep in mind that this would not be possible if the 2nd Amendment did not exist. Side: Yes they should be allowed
2
points
The same article also later states, You'd actually be more likely, statistically speaking, to shoot someone by accident than you are to shoot a home invader. Also, Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.- http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ Side: No, they should not
The FBI statistics show that knives have been used as a murder weapon far more often than rifles — even those evil “assault weapons” we hear so much about — for quite a while. In 2013, knives or other cutting instruments were used to kill 1,490 victims. In contrast, rifles were the cause of death of 285 murder victims. Side: Yes they should be allowed
If fire-arms were banned right now, criminals would have access to them from other countries or from a black market. Also, let's not forget that guns are not the only way to kill someone, there are still knives, bombs, and many other things for mass-murder. Side: Yes they should be allowed
These firearm related incidents is because criminals misuse the right to bear arms, and not as many citizens take advantage of the right for their self defence... Taking away the right would only promote the criminals to get guns illegally, yet take away the citizens chance of fighting back? It is a lose-lose situation. Side: Yes they should be allowed
Let's say that right now, the 2nd Amendment changes, and we can no longer access guns in America legally. The criminals who still own guns would not be willing to turn their guns in to the government. So if the 2nd Amendment were to be banned, that would leave all the criminals with guns, and all the innocent civilians with nothing to defend themselves with. Side: Yes they should be allowed
1
point
"Both Australia and Britain, for example, experienced gun massacres in 1996 and subsequently enacted stricter gun control laws. Their murder rates dropped." "Repealing the Second Amendment will not create a culture of life in one stroke. Stricter gun laws will not create a world free of violence, in which gun tragedies never occur. We cannot repeal original sin. Though we cannot create an absolutely safe world, we can create a safer world. This does not require an absolute ban on firearms. In the post-repeal world that we envision, some people will possess guns: hunters and sportsmen, law enforcement officers, the military, those who require firearms for morally reasonable purposes. Make no mistake, however: The world we envision is a world with far fewer guns, a world in which no one has a right to own one. Some people, though far fewer, will still die from gun violence. The disturbing feeling that we have failed to do everything in our power to remove the material cause of their deaths, however, will no longer compound our grief." -http://americamagazine.org/issue/ The criminals would then be easier to find and try(judicial) as they can't dispute their own guns using the 2nd amendment to defend themselves. Also, “Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.” Therefore, each state could accordingly discuss resolutions and effectively use them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ Side: No, they should not
However as we stated before, banning guns will not decrease the number of deaths from gun violence. As my colleague stated, "Now that modern handguns are no longer legal to have in the UK, let us take a look at some murder rates. The rate for intentional homicide in the UK in 1996—the year of the Dunblane Massacre—was 1.12 per 100,000. It was 1.24 in 1997, when the Firearms Act went into effect, and 1.43 in 1998. The rate rose to a peak of 2.1 in 2002 and has fallen since to 1.23 as of 2010. These numbers have, however, been called into question due to possible under-reporting of violent crimes in the UK." The death rates actually increased once guns were banned. http://listverse.com/2013/12/12/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
http://listverse.com/2013/12/12/ According to the seventh point of that article, there was a school shooting where civilians ran to their car and got hunting rifles to fire at an attacker, who killed 12 people in that school. If the civilians didn't get their rifles, the shooter would've killed much more than 12 people. Side: Yes they should be allowed
Our first point for right to bear arms is that it was stated by George Washington, which we believe is a fundamental individual right, the second point is for safety of Americans. There were cases in America where citizens saved themselves from criminals, because they had guns, for example, a 68 year old East Lake man saved himself by shooting 2 intruders in his house, if the 68 year old didn’t have any arms to protect himself, he would have likely faced extreme conditions. Also, Like Jesus once said, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” This shows that Jesus also believes protecting yourself is more important than anything, and we should protect ourselves with arms. Our third point is the leisure people feel by hunting or shooting targets. It is a human right that someone can freely own a gun for safety, belief, and leisure. Side: Yes they should be allowed
|
1
point
Opening Statement Hey, today we are talking about The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which involves the Right to Bear Arms. In this opening statement, we will argue against this right. While there are many reasons to support our argument, in this video we will discuss only three of them. Starting off, what does the Second amendment say, the second amendment states that “ 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.” Firstly, When the second amendment was created in the 18th century, the US Government primarily relied on its people to fight during war as it had no regulated militia. Therefore, in the unfortunate event of a foreign invasion, the US depended on its civilians to defend itself. Clearly, a well-regulated civilian militia is no longer a military necessity for the United States. Therefore, the question arises that “Does the second clause of the Amendment still apply even if the first clause, providing its reason, is no longer meaningful?”.From this argument we believe that it is essentially clear that the second amendment should hold no validity today as its first clause which holds its justification is completely invalid and untrue. - already said by me. Secondly, arguing against the use of guns for self defense, I would like to present some statistics, an Emory University study concluded, “For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.” In the last 30 years, there have been 62 mass shootings (each leaving at least four people dead) in the United States. Since 1999 there have been 130 shootings at schools; nearly half involved multiple deaths or injuries. While we may turn a blind eye to interpretations and other judgements we must not ignore facts and these facts most certainly go against the 2nd amendment. Finally, this amendment can be dangerous for kids too. In 2012 a mother lost her son by a gunshot. The persons who shot the 14 year old, was his best friend. In Georgia, Cassie Culpepper, 11 years old, was riding in the back of a pickup with her 12-year-old brother and two other children. Her brother started playing with a pistol his father had lent him to scare coyotes. Believing he had removed all the bullets, he pointed the pistol at his sister and squeezed the trigger. It fired, and blood poured from Cassie’s mouth. These stories prove that the second amendment should be banned from the amendments. We believe that it is now obvious to you that the dis advantages of the Second amendment greatly outweigh the benefits. Side: No, they should not
1
point
Side: Yes they should be allowed
If you are saying that the amendment is no longer required, then you sir, are not changing with time. The requirements were different then and now. Perhaps the amendment was a blessing in disguise. As you say, the Americans have a strong police force and military, however what if they can't arrive in time? Hope for the best and hope that the gunmen waits for them to come? The civilians should have a valid fighting chance... in the form of a gun. Side: Yes they should be allowed
1
point
In recent news, a man lost his son from a shooting in a school, this dad had always thought that the second amendment was a great a rule, after the shooting and the lost of his son, this shows how amendment 2 had a big impact on his family. http://www.infowars.com/ Side: No, they should not
1
point
Well, then we should only provide children guns with stricter restrictions. And thus, in most countries arms are only given to those trained to use them such as military officers. thus, conducting background checks before freely handing guns over to civilians is necessary as you said. Side: No, they should not
http://americamagazine.org/issue/ Each year in the United States, approximately 30,000 people, or 80 per day, die from gun violence. True, guns don't kill people; people kill people. In the United States, however, people kill people by using guns. The murder rate in America is 15 times higher than in other first-world countries; the majority of these murders are committed with guns. As for the notion that guns are necessary in order to defend oneself from an intruder with a gun: One study of three U.S. cities revealed that injuries involving guns kept at home almost always resulted from accidental firings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicides by the residents, not self-defense scenarios. In October the American Academy of Pediatrics reminded us, “The safest home for children and teens is one without guns.” Side: No, they should not
The fact is that the banning of firearms only increases crime as a whole. Canada, Australia, and England showed these trends and it continues today. The lie in the article is that so many people are shot and killed each year. If you remove the number that are killed by Law Enforcement, the values take a sharp turn down. More people are killed each year by Knives than guns. Do they want to ban them as well. The fact is that if every person was trained, and carried who was an adult over 21 and not a felon. With the obvious fact about mental states of these people. Then crime would decrease. The facts are out now and crime in DC has gone down along with Chicago. So allowing more guns decreased crime. So why do the Anti Gun Liberals continue to lie and create more restrictions. Side: Yes they should be allowed
On June 26, 2008, in a closely watched, far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the D.C. law, ruling that it violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which 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.” In the court’s majority opinion, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that the prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” Side: No, they should not
Therefore, as you said, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia stated that they cannot go against a constitutional right, completely destroying your argument? Sick... The Associate Justice speaks the truth however, that a right granted to us by our Founding Fathers was only there to defend the rights of a new nation, and against a tyranny, this right is clearly in support of that vision. Side: Yes they should be allowed
1
point
The founders of the nation's vision was that in the event of a foreign invasion, the citizens would be minutemen and fight for the nation. The situation is totally different today. The US government is all powerful. Irrespective of a gun or no gun the police can, find you and ensure justice. Therefore, saying that guns prevent you from tyranny is invalid. - Chief Justice of the US from 1969 to 1986( Warren Burger) has remarked that the second amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Side: No, they should not
1
point
To conclude, we shall keep our stand and are not convinced by the opposing views and judgements. We still believe in all the points mentioned in our opening statements and statistics still clearly go against them. Firstly we talked about the statistics for every gun shot. Then we talked about the first clause of the amendment and how it is no longer true in today's scenario. Continuously accidents happen involving death of children. Whatever, one says, facts are facts. Side: No, they should not
|
