Gun control

Thank you for replying to my argument instead of running out of time, which is why all my debates are 72 hours, so debaters will not forget about their debate. Anyways, onto my rebuttals. In your first counter, you state that " I fail to see how owning a gun counts as a human right.". but I think that if you analyze the definition you gave than you can relate it to this quote "Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the 'natural right of resistance and self-preservation' subject to suitability and allowance by law" [1]. You may be thinking that the "subject to suitability and allowance by law" portion is contradictory to my argument, but in the case of the 2nd amendment, it states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", which exempts it from this part of Sir William's claim. Anyways, this right (the right to keep and bear arms) of self preservation and resistance is absolutely essential as a human right, for it protects us not only from criminals, but corrupt governments also. "The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is the people's right to possess armaments (arms) for their own defense" [2]. It will allow for citizens to fight back (just in case) if their government has destroyed their other human rights. It may not seem apparent that this is needed in current, modern day,1st world nations, but some day, inevitably, there will be an overpowering conflict caused intentionally towards the people, and it will be necessary that they are able to defend themselves. Besides, the governments of Sweden, Britain, and Australia (since it was owned by Britain) were once absolute monarchy, with the government being able to dictate anyone to do anything without question or the ability to be stopped. The only people who could overthrow these primitive systems where other monarchs, with the ability to buy armies, only to instate a new tyrannical dynasty. Now to your rebuttal on mass shootings. You say that handguns are responsible for more mass shootings, and this may be true. However, when you reference that it will be hard to stop a burglar with the slow process of loading up a gun, I noted that if you used a pistol, which is best for the tight confines of a house and is quick to load/prepare, than you would avoid this problem and be better off. This is one reason why pistols shouldn't be banned / restricted more than other guns, due to them being more useful for defense. And on your point about the San Bernardino shooting, the shooters obtaining the gun shows that even with extensive background checks and some of the harshest gun laws in the nation, the state failed to realize that granting them the guns was a major mistake. These restrictions are only affecting those who abide the law, and not criminals. They won't stop most criminals, and they will resort to black markets if they are unable to obtain a gun. The reason that the criminals could carry the guns was that they just disobeyed the law after obtaining the rifles. Criminals (terrorists even more so) are not going to follow laws, especially leading up to the crime they will commit, which is why they are called criminals. I'm sure the shooters weren't thinking, "I wonder how many laws we will break", but "How many people should we kill? To further add, the terrorists used rifles, not pistols, in this attack, which is why it was quite deadly. Also, the attack in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik used rifles (obtained legally and without a criminal record) to kill 70 people, which shows that pistols, although used more often, may be less dangerous (considering the killing power in rifle cartridges). [3] Pistols are more useful for defence than offence, which is why civilians need them the most In my final rebuttal, I would like to explain that the North Korea analogy is associated with the inability of the people to defend themselves due to the lack of this right leading to the elimination of other rights. I should have mentioned before that the banning of guns DIDN'T lead to the lack of human rights within North Korea. However, my analogy was relating to the fact that this would likely happen if gun rights are completely eliminated, due to the people being unable to have a force based say in the government. A forced based say is in countries such as the Republic of the Congo (and even ancient nations such as Rome and Medieval Europe), where only those who have the power to afford weapons and armies can change the government. The low status civilians have no say or effect on the government, and it is left to survival of the fittest to determine the status of the government. In countries without gun rights, but the civilians still have political say (democracy) are right based, with the say of the civilians in the government is given to them by the government, which is a paradox. This idea is unstable, and could collapse to create societies in which the government takes control. All it takes is one tyrant to take over and remove the rights of the people, if they are unable to fight back or resist forcefully, (requiring the use of weapons and a cultural/individual knowledge of them), then this will be quite easy for them. The Roman republic fell after it became an empire, in which citizens had no say in the government. The politics of Rome were left to the powerful tyrants to battle over, as they were slowly allowing the nation to die off. "Various reasons for Rome's fall have been proposed ever since, including loss of Republicanism, moral decay, military tyranny, class war, slavery, economic stagnation..." [4]. The destruction of the republic gave civilians no power, removing their right say. If civilians are able to own guns (by a fundamental right, not a privilege) and other weapons, than the "insurance" will give them power in the force form, which gives them a definite ability to have influence over their government, rather that rights of influence given to them by the government. We need gun rights so that we can not only have our own rights, and protect ourselves effectively, but protect our other rights on our own, signifying true freedom. And one last food for thought, If a right is given to you, is it a true right? Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...