8H: 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: 57
|
 |
No, they should not
Side Score: 64
|
|
|
|
|
The first point we are going to talk about is that guns help to prevent crimes. John Lott, PhD, wrote a book in which he calculated that between the years of 1977 and 1992, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies could have been prevented IF concealed carry laws had been legal. Side: Yes they should be allowed
0
points
You say that the criminal is more likely to kill you, but a peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found that when someone draws a concealed gun in self-defense, the criminal retreats 55.5% of the time. Side: Yes they should be allowed
That is why people should be smart about using guns, but you can use guns if they are an act of self defence. As stated: A man went up to a store manager and asked him if the store was open. He had told him that the store was not open, then the man attacked the store owner with a box-cutter, which is very similar to a knife. The attacker cut the store owners throat, But thankfully the manager was armed with a gun and shot the guy attacking him. The store owner was treated at the scene, and the guy attacking was lying dead on the floor not too far from where it all happened. http://wkrn.com/2015/03/31/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
Another point is that people with guns are more careful and aware of what they are doing. According to a 2000 report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant, in Texas the general public is 5.3 times more likely to be arrested for violent offenses and 14 times more likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than concealed carry weapon permit holders.
Supporting Evidence:
General Public More Prone To Crimes Than Concealed Weapon Holders
(concealedguns.procon.org)
Side: Yes they should be allowed
Another point is that guns can help to stop shootings in public places. For example After the Apr. 20, 1999 Columbine High School massacre, the state of Colorado enacted the 2003 Concealed Carry Act to allow law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon. The CATO Institute concluded that this law helped to stop a massacre at the New Life megachurch in Dec. 2007 when a volunteer security guard for the church who was carrying a concealed handgun shot an attacker who had opened fire in the church. Side: Yes they should be allowed
In conclusion, people need to have guns to protect themselves. You might think that guns cause more crimes, but when you look at the statistics and arguments against this, you will start to see that guns can save lives. They help people feel safer, reduce the number of crimes, and allow people to have a fair chance against criminals with guns. Side: Yes they should be allowed
Hello, today we’re here to talk about a major controversy in America. Almost everyday, you see or hear something bad about people with guns. But really, guns aren’t bad as long as the person’s intention isn’t bad, and we think people like this should be allowed to own guns. Our opponents are going to tell you that this is wrong because guns put people more at risk, increase the number of crimes, and make people uncomfortable. But we are here to tell you that this is wrong. In reality, guns help to prevent crimes, scare away criminals, make people feel safe, and allow people to have a chance against criminals with guns. After hearing us argue these facts, I believe that you will stand with us when we say that people should have the right to own guns. Side: Yes they should be allowed
The second point that we are going to argue is that if people own a gun they can have a chance against criminals and they can also scare off criminals. On CNN there was an article called "Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point" In Georgia a Mother and 2 kids were at home when they heard when an intruder with a cow bar entering into there house. They rushed to the attic and the mom had a .38 revolver (a type of gun) to defend her and her kids. The intruder later on eventually found them, with her on the phone with both 911 and her husband, they told her to shoot him. She shoots him 5 times but he manages to escape and drive away a little bit but then he eventually crashes not so far away. Without the use of this gun for self defense both the mother and the 2 children would not have survived. This is 1 main story that really shows how guns can save someones lives and can be used for self defense.
Supporting Evidence:
Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point
(edition.cnn.com)
Side: Yes they should be allowed
Another point is that, people do not have to get attacked by a gun to use one back, they can get attacked by someone stronger in a more violent way and not be able to defend themselves without using a gun. A man sitting at home saw 2 men crossing in front of his back patio, then knocked on his door. This is when he decided to get hold of a gun. They had asked him to step out of the house though he refused and they ended up going into the house getting ready to attack his wife and infant. He shot them both causing one of the men to die and the other to get injured. apparently there were 2 men behind the scenes though only one was caught. Without the gun, this man would have lost his family. Using a gun saved him, his wife and baby infant. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
1
point
Yes, people do not have to use guns to attack, but if you were getting attacked by someone physically much stronger than you and bigger than you, then you have no chance in beating them, so you will end up dying or getting hurt. Take a look at this case: A boy named Anthony Hernandez was visiting his grandparents when he heard loud noises outside their house. He went to check on the source of the noise and saw a window in the start to move as a 18 year old guy is trying to break into the house. Anthony went to go get a gun, and warned the intruder that he was armed, But he just kept hitting the window and eventually broke through the glass then the 14-year-old shot him. The attacker put his arm out first, before Anthony shot him and he also warned him plenty of times before shooting him. If he did not have a gun to attack back then he or his grandmother would have gotten seriously injured or died. Side: Yes they should be allowed
Another point is that carrying a gun helps people feel safer, even if they aren't using it. According to a 2001 study by the National Opinion Research Center, 59% of people who carry a gun outside the home do so because it makes them feel safer. Side: Yes they should be allowed
Another example of using guns for self defense and in a positive way was a story on Daily Caller called "Family Of Gun Owners Saves Mom From Attack In Her Driveway". A mother was almost kidnapped in her drive way after a duck hunting trip with her family. Her sons and husband all had guns because of the trip. He followed her into the house, later on her husband and the 2 sons held down the criminal in the living room floor with a gun aimed at him. They didn't shoot the criminal but they used it to keep them safe. That shows that guns do not need to be used to kill but that it can be used to save lives. Without it how would the family stand a chance against him? Side: Yes they should be allowed
Another point is that if you use a gun to defend yourself, you are less likely to get injured. A study by criminologist Gary Kleck, PhD, concluded that "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection." Side: Yes they should be allowed
Another point is that women need to be able to protect themselves from being attacked, raped, etc. In Florida, the percentage of concealed handgun permit holders who are female rose from 15% in 2004 to 23% in 2014. One of these female permit holders stated that women "need to be able to defend their home and defend themselves if they go out. It's just a safety issue." Side: Yes they should be allowed
The third point is that gun help people feel safe. Even if the gun is not used, it helps the person feel like they are protected, it also makes the attacker back off. For example: A woman had been held hostage “for more than 20 hours” in her own home, and only got the chance to go outside where she could be seen because she was trying to escape. The man next door saw his female neighbour being beaten and got involved by taking out his gun and holding the attacker in place until the police arrived. Side: Yes they should be allowed
0
points
Guns don't make you feel safe you should fill danger, because a lot of people in america use guns for fun. http://www.debate.org/opinions/ Side: No, they should not
|
3
points
in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Side: No, they should not
3
points
2
points
With a cost of a handgun which is around $500-600(not including the magazine or the bullets or the safe or the permit) so overall the total costs is around $900-1200.You could get enough martial arts training to completely immobilize a person even with a gun or a knife. The average mixed martial arts class costs $50-75 a month or $1000 a year which is pretty much the cost of a gun up front. Side: No, they should not
1
point
1
point
The 2nd amendment is “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.” it is only for militia or the military not for civilians. http://study.com/academy/lesson/ Side: No, they should not
The federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the Dec. 11, 2012 case Moore v. Madigan, ruled 2-1 that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms "must be interpreted to include a right to have a concealed gun in public, to have it ready for use, and to have it for self-defense." Side: Yes they should be allowed
3
points
In the U.S v. Miller Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller said that they should have the right to have guns according to the 2nd amendment but the court disagreed and said it was only for the militia. Side: No, they should not
2
points
1
point
Some parents in America think it is right to let their kid/kids be able to use a gun to shoot. I disagree because if the kid was practicing his/her shooting skills and does not see someone pass by, the kid might shoot the innocent person. Side: No, they should not
1
point
1
point
Parents should not have a gun around their children. If they choose to do so then the gun should be concealed and should not leave the toddler with a gun unsupervised. A toddler was grocery shopping with his mother and decided to reach down his mother's purse finding a gun. The toddler pulled the trigger and killed his mother. Kids are kids and should not have a weapon this powerful that can take a life away around them. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ Side: No, they should not
1
point
Brady Campaign, believe that the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun. If they want to have guns they should have restrictions like who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary. Side: No, they should not
1
point
Bill clinton stated this: "When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly .... When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." - Bill Clinton It is saying that when people abuse the right to have a gun they should be taken away and many people have abused the right for many years now. Side: No, they should not
1
point
"A 20-year-old man was shot at 7:54 a.m. Saturday in the 3000 block of West Lexington Street in the Lawndale neighborhood on the West Side, according to Officer Stacey Cooper, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Police Department. The 20-year-old was walking when an occupant of a white Honda exited the vehicle and fired several rounds, hitting the man in both legs, Cooper said. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in fair condition, she said." This is an example of how a gun can kill innocent people. http://www.chicagotribune. Side: No, they should not
1
point
Another reason why dogs can be useful to protect yourself and people that surround you. A dog catches guilty man carrying a gun at a local airport. If the dog did not catch this man, there could have been a shooting that could have killed douzens of people. http://www.huffingtonpost. Side: No, they should not
1
point
1
point
As you see in the article there are a lot of people shot to death. We are in need of a sensible gun law! http://edition.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/ Side: No, they should not
1
point
1
point
having a gun when you are do not 100% control over your mind when you have alcohol in your system can make you do the wrong choices which can harm many people. https://www.youtube.com/ Side: No, they should not
0
points
Today we are going to talk about the second amendment and how it is not beneficial to our community and people around us. On the news everyday you hear court cases of how having a gun that is within your reach can be harmful. Some injure and kill innocent people everyday. Children as young as 2 years old have killed family members which is not acceptable. The second amendment is the right to bear arms which means that we have the right to have a weapon in our house or on our person if we choose to. There are a lot of regulations but even though there are these regulations are there many people do not follow them. We think that even with these regulations guns should be banned. A survey showed that parents guns were not locked up a home even though regulation states that the gun has to be locked up and unloaded. Side: No, they should not
0
points
You say that having the right to carry a gun around can stop crimes but most times carrying a gun is the reason those crimes start. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ Side: No, they should not
I disagree with your comment, even though guns may cause some problems, how would people have a chance against that criminal. Also remember that if guns become illegal, if someone wanted to get one they would be able to like drugs and alchohol. Side: Yes they should be allowed
2
points
yes you are right if they really wanted one they would eventually get one but it would be a lot harder and the punishment would be more severe so no one would want to get one. Like in the UAE the punishment is so severe that people are scared to get a gun even if they are able to because they would rather live without it then suffer the consequences. Side: No, they should not
1
point
I belive that what you are saying is incorrect, infact many crimes do not use guns. If might be someone being older or stronger than you attacking you, and you might have no chance to beat them or scare them off unless you have a gun. A boy named Anthony Hernandez was visiting his grandparents when he heard loud noises outside their house. He went to check on the source of the noise and saw a window in the start to move as a 18 year old guy is trying to break into the house. Anthony went to go get a gun, and warned the intruder that he was armed, But he just kept hitting the window and eventually broke through the glass then the 14-year-old shot him. The attacker put his arm out first, before Anthony shot him and he also warned him plenty of times. So it was an act of self defence. Side: Yes they should be allowed
0
points
0
points
See this is one of the many reasons why children accidentally kill or get killed. This is because many parents think that their child does not know where the gun is but in fact many children do.more than half of their parents do not keep their guns locked and unloaded which should not be the case. Also Nearly 800 children under 14 were killed in gun accidents from 1999 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly one in five injury-related deaths in children and adolescents involve firearms. If a gun is loaded and not in a safe while at home and your kids find it thinking that as responsible parents you unloaded the gun then they might start playing with it and kill or be killed. This is one of the many reasons guns should be banned even with regulations because many people still dont follow them. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ Side: No, they should not
0
points
In the U.S v. Miller Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller said that they should have the right to have guns according to the 2nd amendment but the court disagreed and said it was only for the militia. Side: No, they should not
0
points
On December 27th 2012 a shooting occurred at “Sandy Hook” elementary school, causing the death to 20 children between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. The US averages 9,146 deaths just caused by firearms a year. http://www.governing.com/topics/ Side: No, they should not
The Christian Science Monitor reported that "the number of incidents in which concealed gun carriers kill innocent people is a fraction of 1 percent of all gun-related homicides."
Supporting Evidence:
Concealed carriers killing innocent people is less than 1% of gun related homocides
(www.csmonitor.com)
Side: Yes they should be allowed
0
points
Well okay not just suicides children die because of guns. at least 13 children were shot and killed in America. Side: No, they should not
0
points
"More American homes have guns than dogs." It is honestly shocking that more people have guns rather than having a pet. You can purchase a dog that can protect your family by training the dog to do so. In a high stress situation you might accidentally shoot someone and you won't be able to take that bullet back. But with a trained dog you can order it to attack a criminal that may cause harm to your family until the attackers immobilized and then call the dog back so that you don't have to kill the criminal with a gun. http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/ Side: No, they should not
I disagree with your comment, a dog is just like any other living thing, if it is shot with a gun, it's dead. At that point you wont have anything to defend yourself with. Guns are the most efficient way of protecting yourself, and without the use of guns it's hard to keep yourself protected. This all is an act of self defence. You cant carry a dog with you everywhere to keep you protected, many crimes happen outside of the homes as stated: An armed citizen was walking around by the barber shop, then heard gun shots, so he went to go help out. The man in the barber shop had fired on customers and workers too, but the armed citizen happens to show up and shoot the gunman in the chest, saving many people's lives. The gunman had shot a 40 year old man, but due to the armed citizen, thankfully no one else died or even got injured. Side: Yes they should be allowed
I greatly disagree with your comment. Dogs are just as likely to get shot as humans. They are not a good source of protection. In this article it shows you how 2 people got killed, and there dogs. Later on there neighbor had gun and shot the criminal. As you can see the dogs could not stand a chance against the criminal. But if they had a gun the 2 people that died would have been able to save themselves. that is why guns are a good source of protection. Side: Yes they should be allowed
|
