The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms

I typed up a 7000 word Arguments list and it got deleted somehow even though it said auto saved... (Here we go again...) I thank my opponent for an intellectually stimulating Debate Challenge. Before i begin with Refutations, I'd like to state something. This debate is about whether the right to own, keep, and bear arms should be a right. Simply saying it's in the constitution doesn't give ground for automatically making it a right. Pro needs to link his legal arguments to the benefits of this right, while con gives the harms. I as con will proceed to do this now. My opponent argument is centered around the Constitution, but theres a few problems in his argumentation.1- Links- He doesn't prove why this right should be exercised freely. Just because something is legal, does not mean it is moral and vice versa. He doesn't give any benefits to this right, so you can't simply look towards his unalienable rights argument because this isn't shown to give benefits, unlike all other unalienable rights.2- Status Quo- Here's where the heavy argumentation will begin. Status Quo [1] is Latin for "The State in which". So for this argument, we will be looking at the state in which we live in today. The United States Constitution was Signed on September 17th, 1787 [2], over 224 years ago. The Treaty of Paris, the Treaty that effectively ended the American Revolution and sent the British packing was signed on September 3rd, 1783 [3]. It was safe to say, at this time, America was an extremely young nation, the federal government, adopted after the signing of the constitution, was busy with it's own matters, such as the debt amounted from the American Revolution. Colonists were in constant fear of an attack from overseas (Britain) Law enforcement was non existent, there was no army except these colonist run militias, and there was no way of defending oneself from imminent danger. This 2nd Amendment may have been applicable at that point in time, but jumping ahead 224 years, and looking at the status quo, we can see this is no longer true. Law Enforcement solves for the second amendment. The whole reason we do not need gun's for protection, is because we have law enforcement. The police, court systems, etc. There were no established benefits to the Second amendment, which in this day and age would create hostilities that could lead to even more violence. A gun is a scary thing to have when walking into a grocery store, knowing others around you have one as well. Police are often looked at differently, not because of their uniforms, but because they have a gun, sitting in it's holster ready to be shot at a moments notice. There are no benefits, only harms that accompany the second amendment if ordinary citizens who were untrained in even using a gun are given one. For example, Guns are often used to try and solve problem, leading to far greater consequences, such as in Road Rage [4] , Abortion [5] , and Gay Marriage [6]. Clearly the consequences to enacting such a right, and using guns in our every day life will cause far greater consequences.3- Moral Agents- The Guns are not the major problem, it is the agents that use them. By agents, i mean human beings, able to understand their own concepts of a subjective form of morality. We need to look at the motives of human beings who use guns, aside from law enforcement, and we can easily establish the clear harms of gun possesion and the lack of control. Gun Accidents alone kill 500 kids a year. According to the Center for Disease Control,[8] In the year 2007 12,129 Died from homicides involving fire arms, 17,348 died from suicide with a firearm, and 721 died from an accidental discharge of a firearm. In 2000, there were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental fatal gunshot injuries in the United States [9] (Sorry for Wikipedia). We cannot be trusted to use fire arms in a community, without proper training and proven intentions. This is why we have law enforcement. This right compleely undermines law enforcement effectively eliminating it, allowing the community to take matters into it's own hands through pure violence (which obviously is bad).Violence equates to more violence, allowing even 1 simple dischage can spark an uproar and lead to deaths in a community. This is precisely why we cannot allow just anyone to excercise this right, and why there are restrictions when dealing with gun control. My opponent is basically advocating more violence, and no benefits from this.4- Self-Defense- [10]. As stated before, Violence escalates more violence, which law enforcement solves for. This means that using a gun in self defense equates to a cycle of violence that leads to no benefis for either side, on top of that once again this is undermining law enforcement. Stephen and Walter Wink, of the St. Louis University Law Journal Explain that the Cycle of Violence is counterintuitive to what self defense is trying to achieve, yet self defense leads to the cycle of violence. This means that self- defense using guns is condescending to the system of morality it seeks to transcend. [11]For these reasons i strongly urge a con vote. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate and good luck to my opponent.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.history.com...[3] http://www.history.com...[4] http://www.nbcchicago.com...[5] http://www.rickross.com...[6] http://snarkfood.com...[7] http://www.momlogic.com...[8] http://www.cdc.gov...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] http://www.guninformation.org...[11] Cycle of Violence- Stephen and Walter Wink