8E: 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: 35
|
 |
No, they should not
Side Score: 43
|
|
|
|
|
The second Amendment is a big issue today both domestically and internationally. Today we will be looking at the second amendment and why should Americans have the right to bear arms with restrictions. Throughout our points we are going to be highlighting the essential need and the human right to own a weapon. -One reason why americans should have the right to bear arms is because of self defense. -Invasions from foreign countries are not an issue, because these countries know that many American citizens are well- armed. -The second amendment reduced the number of crimes due to the fact that everyone has the right to defend themselves. -Because of the second amendment people get the same right and advantage. Side: Yes they should be allowed
1
point
"The second amendment reduced the number of crimes due to the fact that everyone has the right to defend themselves." I would like to argue this point since according to a study by Charles Branas (PhD), he found that people “carrying a gun for self-defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than an assault victim without a gun. He is an (American Journal of Public Health) Side: No, they should not
0
points
Our first point; Self-defense is the main reason why Americans have the right to bear arms. Thanks to this law, crimes have been decreasing and attacks such as robberies and others, have increased as well. Here is an article that demonstrates how guns can be used for self-defense. http://www.westernjournalism.com/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/ 30,000 Americans are killed by gun violence per year. Children, elderly, and most of the time innocent people — you name it. You decide what you value more: a single crime being prevented or the 30,000 stories behind the deaths of these Americans. (Not to imply that gun control would prevent people from self-defense – I prefer bear spray and a taser over a gun any day). These are only few of the many incredulous arguments that reverberate through the halls of your Congress today. For each day we hold off of gun control, more than 85 Americans a day are killed by gun violence. If the recent defeat of the Manchin-Toomey gun control proposal (the background-check expansion that had approximately 93 percent public approval but still failed) is an indicator of anything, it is that the NRA has taken our legislators hostage. The nonsense needs to stop, and we’re the ones who need to stop it. In the words of legendary President Ronald Reagan himself, “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped. Side: No, they should not
0
points
http://secondamendment1.weebly.com/ “Criminals simply retreats 55.5% of the time" when seeing their victims with drawled guns according to a Journal written by a Phd named Gary Kleck. Someone with a restricted gun permit could stop the criminal which would have killed many people. The gun saved many lives. Side: Yes they should be allowed
http://www.wxyz.com/news/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
0
points
The gun is used for self defence and as said by Ann Coulter; “Guns are our friends because in a country without guns, I'm what's known as "prey." All females are.” An example of a real life story is, a woman’s adult son shot and injured his mother’s boyfriend, Tony Hardin, in Tennessee, after Hardin allegedly fought with the woman and chased her with a hammer, threatening to kill her. Hardin faces charges. The man would have most likely killed the mother if her son didn't stop him. Even though her son shot him he used the gun for self defence to protect his mother and himself. http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
Our closing sentence is; we believe that Americans should have the right to bear arms; Not just as a protection gear, but also as a well- being, you don’t know when someone is going to attack your home, or your family. Also because of these three points; Invasions from foreign countries are not an issue, because these countries know that many American citizens are well- armed. The second amendment reduced the number of crimes due to the fact that everyone has the right to defend themselves. Because of the second amendment people get the same right and advantage as criminals. This amendment shouldn't be removed because it was created by the Constitution and “every person on the planet has the right to defend themselves from those who would oppress them, exploit them, harm them, or kill them.” The right to bear arms is a human right Side: Yes they should be allowed
Our second argument is; If guns were to be banned, criminals would just switch to knives, baseball bats, deadly drugs, hit and runs with cars, gasoline and matches, and even their own hands. More people die from being strangled and stabbed than from gunshot wounds in America. Should we ban knives too? There was a study and said that more people died from dog bites rather from a firearm this doesn’t mean American government is suddenly going to ban dogs from their country. http://www.thetruthaboutguns. Side: Yes they should be allowed
https://www.ucsf. Side: No, they should not
1
point
http://secondamendment1.weebly.com/ Armed citizens can help reduce crime because according to John Lott (PhD) gun laws helped reduce "homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, rapes by 5%, and robberies by 3%" So no it doesn't increase the victims likeliness of a homicide. Side: Yes they should be allowed
1
point
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 31,672 people died by guns in 2010. In a 1998 in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery they found that 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. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ Side: No, they should not
Our third point is; Policemen are not always reliable, they take an average of 11 minutes to respond, so the citizen needs protection until the police comes. http://concealedguns.procon.org Policemen cannot always protect everyone all the time, Americans with guns have the advantage that if they get attacked, and policemen is not there, or for whatever reason they cannot protect them, these people are able to protect themselves from invaders. “An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject.” — Anon. “Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake.” — Malcolm Wallop, former U.S. Sen. (R-WY) http://patriotwarrior.org/2008/03/18/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
http://www.gunpolicy. In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1. In 2013 there were about 36,000 gun deaths in america. Unintentional gun deaths in 2013 in america were around 500 people. If guns were handled more carefully, then there would be less deaths. The number of people who own guns in america varies between 270,000,000 to 310,000,000 people, any of them can mishandle their gun and take away many lives. Side: Yes they should be allowed
|
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/ Most studies suggest that gun laws reduce violence. In the United States, the South consistently has more deaths by assault than any other region. It also has the most lenient gun control laws. A Harvard study from last year showed that between 2007 and 2010, states with fewer gun control laws generally had higher gun-related mortality rates than states with stricter gun control. Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association confirmed that finding; and a meta-analysis of other studies, also from Harvard, showed that higher gun ownership rates was correlated with higher homicide rates, both within the U.S. and amongst different high-income countries. Gun control laws have directly prevented more than 2 million criminals from buying guns. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership and the highest rate of homicide-by-gun in the world. Side: No, they should not
Not only gun owners are the ones that firearms, also police, in fact there has been a studied in Police Quarterly, that says “January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 saw an average of 703 crimes by police per year. 113 of these involved firearms violations.” There has been a rate of 20.5 out of per 100,000 gun owners doing crimes, but still this is just a sixth less than polices. But because policemen are making crimes with firearms involve we are also going to ban them from carrying guns? And why would government take the rights to bear arms from Americans, when policemen actually do more crimes with guns that actual gun owners....? “At some point, maybe the New York Times and other gun control advocates will realize that making false claims about permit holders actually endangers public safety.” All found in this article. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/ Should we ban policemen from carrying guns as well? Side: Yes they should be allowed
If you’re mentally ill or a convicted criminal, then maybe you won’t be able to buy a gun. There is absolutely no legislation being considered that would take guns away from anyone. The most “radical” gun legislation ever considered in the United States is the “assault weapons ban” — a ban on further sales of weapons that would in no way take away any guns already on the street. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/ Side: No, they should not
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/ Side: No, they should not
In this CNN report, the mother of three child admitted that it is better for a family to own a gun; “I began to accept that the gun itself posed no danger.” Said Tracy Scarpulla in CNN.news. “I learned I had nothing to fear and a lot to gain from owning a gun.” http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/02/ This report, totally goes againts your point, saying that families should own guns, for their own safety, a mother in this CNN report admitted it. Side: Yes they should be allowed
1
point
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/ And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own. If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in. To begin with, having a gun in the home is a risk factor for serious accidental injury and death. As Hemenway points out, death certificate data indicate that 680 Americans were killed accidentally with guns each year between 2003 and 2007. Half those victims were under the age of 25. Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries. An average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns each day between 2003 and 2007. In fact, more Americans killed themselves with guns during those years than with all other methods combined. Two-thirds of all murders between 2003 and 2007 involved guns. The average number of Americans shot and killed daily during those years was 33. Of those, one was a child (0 to 14 years), five were teenagers (15 to 19 years) and seven were young adults (20 to 24 years), on average. Side: No, they should not
“While some studies show that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of injury and death, a recent Pew survey found a higher percentage of Americans saying that gun ownership does more to protect people from crime (48%) than put their safety at risk (37%). She's not alone. Robin and other parents who keep firearms in the home say the lesson of the Sandy Hook tragedy is not that we need more gun control but that we need more parental involvement in children's lives. Parents should teach children how to deal with guns responsibly.” "It's for our safety," she said. "I have a lot of respect for them. I don't see it as fun or cool, but if I'm ever in a situation where I need a gun, I know what to do and I'm not scared." Says 15-year old, whose mother taught her to shoot guns, rifles, etc... http://edition.cnn. http://www.westernjournalism.com/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
1
point
In the beginning of you dispute you just supported us saying how having guns can injure yourself and can cause deaths/murders, the percentages are so close in numbers that i would rather no put my safety in risk just to stop crime, i would let the police do their job and stop crimes. Side: Yes they should be allowed
1
point
If the owner of the gun stores the gun safely and out of reach of children then the gun will be to their benefit. “Criminals simply retreats 55.5% of the time" when seeing their victims with drawled guns according to a Journal written by a Phd named Gary Kleck. If the criminal sees that the victim has a gun they would most probably get scared and leave. Even if the 2nd amendment was taken away the people could have still illegally imported guns and then the citizens that didn't illegally import guns would be at a disadvantage. http://thebilzerianreport.com/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
http://www.motherjones. Gun massacres most often use legal weapons: According to Mother Jones, of the more than 70 mass shootings in the United States in the last 30 years, about three-quarters of the guns used were obtained legally by the killers. Pro-gun control advocates believe tougher gun laws could have potentially prevented these crimes. Side: No, they should not
Another source that goes against your point; having a gun at home increases the chances of your family being safe; A woman was saved by her family of gun owners — her husband and two sons — after a man attacked her in her Gonzales, Louisiana driveway and tried to kidnap her Sunday evening. “We all have rights as citizens, and I say stand up for them. Don’t back down from nobody if you are right.” http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/03/ If it wasn’t for the arms the family owned this women would have been kidnapped and would have been mistreated by the kidnapper who was in drugs during the accident. Side: Yes they should be allowed
http://www.motherjones. Gun massacres most often use legal weapons: According to Mother Jones, of the more than 70 mass shootings in the United States in the last 30 years, about three-quarters of the guns used were obtained legally by the killers. Pro-gun control advocates believe tougher gun laws could have potentially prevented these crimes. Side: No, they should not
1
point
If the second amendment gets taken away the criminals would turn to other weapons such as; knives, baseball bats, gasoline and matches, etc. If they make guns illegal and the criminals moved on to stabbings the country wouldn't ban knives, and baseballs, etc. Side: Yes they should be allowed
1
point
The 2nd Amendment is only 27 words: “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.” But the NRA always relates to the last 14 words, which is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on “well-regulated militia” and “security of a free State” to rule that Second Amendment rights to their states militias – nowadays known as the National Guards. http://fair.org/article/ Side: No, they should not
Well in this article it shows the NRA accepting the right to bear arms. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
Guns are a part of the Constitution, this is part of the culture and government of USA, so if the government removes Amendment Two, well why shouldn’t they remove other, as they have the right to remove one Amendment, they should also remove others. The right to bear arms is Amendment 2, it was created by the Constitution in 1788 if the government takes it away, it will be the same thing as taking away Amendment 1, the freedom of speech, religion… “Every person on the planet has the right to defend themselves from those who would oppress them, exploit them, harm them, or kill them.” The right to bear arms is a human right http://humanevents.com/2012/04/18/ We can't just remove the second amendment, and there is no media supporting those ideas you just listed. Side: Yes they should be allowed
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ - Bill Clinton Side: No, they should not
http://smartgunlaws.org/understanding-mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago/ 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.” the Supreme Court in 2010 ruled that the Second Amendment extends to private citizens who aren’t in militias — but that same ruling, McDonald v. Chicago, also found that gun regulations are well-within the bounds of the Second Amendment. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ the-lost-amendment The Second Amendment was made for the sole purpose of preventing a tyrannical government from overtaking the people. This amendment was included in the Constitution under the pretense that, if the people so chose, they could overthrow the government with their guns and reinstate new leaders. This amendment was added when “arms” meant rifles that took 40 seconds to reload, and “accuracy” didn’t exist. I’m also afraid to say that under today’s government — with the nuclear power and military that government possesses — our rifles and pistols don’t stand a chance. Not to mention the thought of the government becoming a tyrant is a faded memory of the Founding Fathers’ generation. If we hold this amendment to be all-powerful, then we should also give equal weight to the amendment following it: Soldiers cannot be quartered in your homes. I’m sure we all struggle with that problem day to day. Side: No, they should not
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ Side: No, they should not
Exactly you just stated it; "Second Amendment was made for the sole purpose of preventing a tyrannical government from overtaking the people." Meaning if they ban the guns then the government will become a tyranny because they are taking a constitution amendment off. Quote from George Washington; “When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government's right to govern.” I already stated but I will stated again; The right to bear arms is Amendment 2, it was created by the Constitution in if the government takes it away, it will be the same thing as taking away Amendment 1, the freedom of speech, religion… “Every person on the planet has the right to defend themselves from those who would oppress them, exploit them, harm them, or kill them.” The right to bear arms is a human right http://humanevents.com/2012/04/18/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ - Bill Clinton Side: No, they should not
1
point
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/ “GUNS ARE NOT THE ISSUE. WE ARE.” ― Aaron B. Powell, Guns “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” ― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle Guns don't have any power alone, they only have power when they are in someone's hands. That person could either use it for good or evil, so the guns aren't the problem. Side: No, they should not
http://aclu.procon.org/ "Individual gun ownership is NOT a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does NOT guarantee the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the general populace to store weapons and render military service as the Organized State Militia that is known today as the National Guard." Side: No, they should not
-Washington DC 's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis ' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. -When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125). http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/10/ http://www.ppic.org/main/ After increasing slightly in 2012, California’s violent crime rate dropped by 6.5% in 2013, to a 46-year low of 397 per 100,000 residents. In 2013, 59% of violent crimes in California were aggravated assaults, 35% were robberies, 5% were rapes, and 1% were homicides. Side: No, they should not
1
point
1
point
Large collections of firearms are a huge funding that require lengthy-term safety. Having a huge Fire Vault in your series ensures its protection from robbery and potential house fires. These Fire Safe Vaults were designed to offer the very best degree of protection on your firearms with a sturdy metal and composite fire retardant insulation that may offer up to an hour of fireproof safety. Large stable-metal deadbolts cozy the vault door in several positions to provide whole protection to the contents within. Side: No, they should not
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. After doing research we disagree with it because most murders in america are caused by guns. Today we will show you all the pros of gun control. In today’s world most murders are caused by guns, there are school shootings, mall shootings, street shootings! How many more murders can we take? Our first point is that a lot of unnecessary murders occur due to lack of gun control, second there is no need for civilians to own guns if the police is doing their job, and lastly when the amendment was created the military wasn’t as powerful as it is now and so citizens always had to defend one another. Side: No, they should not
-1
points
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. After doing research we disagree with it because most murders in america are caused by guns. Today we will show you all the pros of gun control. In today’s world most murders are caused by guns, there are school shootings, mall shootings, street shootings! How many more murders can we take? Our first point is that a lot of unnecessary murders occur due to lack of gun control, second there is no need for civilians to own guns if the police is doing their job, and lastly when the amendment was created the military wasn’t as powerful as it is now and so citizens always had to defend one another. Side: No, they should not
Well now if some one is in danger in the middle of anywhere the police are not required to protect every individual citizen, but the majority which means that citizens need to have their own protection. https://www.gunowners.org/fs9712.htm Side: Yes they should be allowed
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/ And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own. If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in. To begin with, having a gun in the home is a risk factor for serious accidental injury and death. As Hemenway points out, death certificate data indicate that 680 Americans were killed accidentally with guns each year between 2003 and 2007. Half those victims were under the age of 25. Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries. An average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns each day between 2003 and 2007. In fact, more Americans killed themselves with guns during those years than with all other methods combined. Two-thirds of all murders between 2003 and 2007 involved guns. The average number of Americans shot and killed daily during those years was 33. Of those, one was a child (0 to 14 years), five were teenagers (15 to 19 years) and seven were young adults (20 to 24 years), on average. Side: No, they should not
|
