New Member Debate: (Domestic) Gun Proliferation

Good morning! I've been absent from DDO for quite some time, but I figured it was time to revisit my favorite debate site. :) I thank my opponent for creating this debate, and wish him the best of luck in the coming rounds. Note: due to character limits, I haven't had the space to adopt my own offensive advocacy. However, as the Con, my burden is simply to prove my opponent's arguments wrong. I believe that an advocacy establishing the effectiveness of the status quo emerges, though. Basically, I'm a fan of gun restriction to the extent that it exists now in the U.S. Onto the round! -------------------------------------------- Overview: Though I bring this up a couple times during the debate itself, it's important to note that my opponent has stated that we are debating current gun control policy in the U.S. This means that any ground he is drawing from a dichotomy between having NO gun access and full gun access becomes non-topical, since gun policy in the U.S. doesn't operate that way. I say this because my opponent makes this assumption in a vast majority of his arguments. -------------------------------------------- C1: Founding Fathers 1. There's no point in disagreeing that the text and spirit of the 2nd amendment never state much about the power of weapons citizens could possess, because that would appear to be true. However, that doesn't mean that the power of such weapons isn't a matter of contention. Common sense and legal/court precedent dictate that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to reinterpretation and change based on citizen and elected official consent. If the majority believes that certain firearms should not be for public consumption and the Constitution is not specific in its wording, interpretation is perfectly justified. 2. This has little to do with gun control in the first place. The main point to be made is that the intent of the amendment was originally to protect small towns from British invasion when revolutionary troops could not arrive in time to save the day. The "cutting edge of the day" that affects the amendment now isn't the power of the weapons, per se, but the ease with which our army and National Guard can assist our cities and towns. Furthermore, considering the very nature of modern warfare and terrorist threat, having an automatic weapon under your bed will hardly protect you from bombs and missiles. The chances of a ground war in the States involving citizens is miniscule. So, if you want to win any part of this argument, you have to prove otherwise. ------------------------------------------- C2: Guns & Crimes England: 1. Since when is gun control characterized exclusively by a 100% lack of guns in households/with private citizens? Yes, that has been a stated goal of some gun control advocates, but that hasn't come to fruition in the United States. This point is essentially non-topical as your topic states that we are debating current domestic policy. I can't think of a single state that has abolished guns, or that is even considering abolishing guns. Nor can I recall a federal piece of legislation working to accomplish that at the moment. 2. Can you cite your source for the bludgeon/stabbing data? I don't believe it to be accurate. According to the UK National Archives data for 2008-2009 (the latest available), weapons are only used in about 21% of all violent crimes in the nation (weapons of any kind). While knives and other non-gun objects are used more than guns (knives 7%, glass/bottles 5%, "hitting implements 4%, and guns 1%), their data indicated no rise in the use of knives or hitting objects over the last decade. The only slightly notable increase in the use of non-guns in crimes was the use of knives in attempted homicides. All other violent crimes using non-gun weapons decreased in 2008-2009. (1) Strong Arm Robberies: 1. How is this scenario not a powder keg and completely irresponsible? The point of utilizing the social contract in a civilized society is to give up some of our personal, natural rights to the state in order to prevent chaos. Not every citizen in the US can or should wield a gun at another in prevention of crime. Even highly trained military officers and police officers make mistakes in the commission of their duties. How do we ensure that millions upon millions of citizens are using firearms in such situations as the one outlined by my opponent fairly and wisely? Or do we simply de-evolve into convenience store fire fights for justice? 2. In what state would this actually occur? Even if guns are perfectly and 100% legal (without restriction based on gun safety education, licensure, weapon strength, etc.) not every citizen would choose to have a gun in the first place. Clearly, this cooked up scenario has nothing to do with preventing strong arm robberies. Second of all, I challenge you to actually prove via legitimate data that the possession of fire arms by citizens is actually preventing crime. You don't do that at all-- you just assert that it's true and expect us to believe it. We could also attribute a drop in crime rate to increased youth education, deterrence based on punitive measures in place in each state, etc. -------------------------------------------- C3 Accidental deaths: While I agree, unrestricted access to firearms doesn't accomplish this goal. Timmy's grandpa can have 20 guns in the house that are all perfectly legal to own, and his grandpa probably had to pass mandatory gun safety courses to get them. But unless Timmy's grandpa takes the initiative to teach his grandson about guns (not a legal requirement), or locks up the guns per state laws, Timmy just being around guns doesn't ensure he can't blow his friend's head off. This point is non-topical. 2. Assault My opponent misunderstands the point that most gun control advocates try to make when they discuss such scenarios. The argument is that the angry husband or bar crawler is going to have a much easier time killing someone with a gun versus another object. Sure, anyone can kill another human being with just about anything. But, common sense dictates that a gun will certainly get the job done more efficiently than most other objects. 3. National Unity 1. Xenophobia is not a new phenomena, and it won't be going away anytime soon. 2. I don't think you can equate gun control to a simple fear of the other, anyway. Logically, it makes the most sense to restrict weapons to those who are the most trained to not only use the weapon (in terms of its mechanics), but to administer its power fairly and wisely. Granted, to err is human. Even the officers that we vest with the authority to wield all manner of weapons have made mistakes with them. But we've acknowledged the statistical likelihood of them using those weapons properly since we've had an organized military and police force. 3. This is a highly silly argument full stop, and could be used as a justification to eliminate all laws, and the state, in fact. Let's get rid of anti-murder laws, because we should just be able to implicitly trust every human being around us. Traffic lights are clearly unnecessary as well, because every driver is clearly competent and trustworthy. Furthermore, turn this argument, as common sense would dictate that allowing just anyone to possess a concealed firearm would actually lead to more fear that it would be discharged unjustly or incorrectly, since there is a reason all laws are in place: human beings are naturally unpredictable and not always rational or concerned with the safety of those around them. This is an inarguable fact. (1) http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...