Gun Rights

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate! Nicolo Machiavelli once said that there were five reasons why it was absolutely essential for individuals to enjoy a right to keep and bear arms: to protect one's self, to keep rulers honest, to hunt, to defend the state against foreign invasion and to maintain one's republican character (lol). After all, how could any liberty be more vital than the second amendment? It makes every other civil liberty Americans enjoy possible. If not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government with their rights existing only at their government's pleasure [1]. I'll begin my rebuttal by responding to my opponent's claim that only cops, convenient store owners and those who carry large amounts of money should be able to own guns. While it's clear that a legitimate argument can be made for why cops are allowed to own guns - why convenient store owners in particular? Why not bookshop keepers or grocery store owners or Taco Bell? Convenient stores (which typically do not deal with large sums of money) are just one type of many stores; many stores deal with even larger sums of money on a daily basis - such as Macy's. Further, what constitutes a "large amount" of money? And what if a 17 year old had this large amount - would they be eligible to carry a gun? These standards to me seem far too loose and non-specific. I don't see the relevance. Additionally, there seems to be a double standard in terms of responsibility and trust. For instance, it would appear that Con's advocacy for money-handlers to be allowed guns is so that they can make sure nobody steals from them. However, doesn't that just give them the power to steal from another who is not allowed to protect themselves? And then of course there's the question about tyranny of government. If ONLY the cops (or other government groups) are allowed to own guns, then isn't that not only a violation of our second amendment rights, but also just a straight up forfeiture of protection? After all, the government is nothing but a group of powerful (mortal, fallible) individuals. People have the right to protect themselves. Our right to own guns should not be stifled by people who have proven too irresponsible to hold that right. Instead, their rights should simply be revoked and they should be punished as individuals for any trouble they've caused. People care to own guns for a variety of reasons. Because those reasons aren't meant to intentionally harm others, we shouldn't expect that one's intention in owning guns is to commit a crime. Not only do guns not cause crime, but they help stop it. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck, handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes. The point is that in this world there are people who can be identified as "prey." As the old saying goes, "God didn't make all people equal — Mr. Colt did." A 1985 survey by the Department of Justice of inmates across the nation reported that 56 percent of the felons agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." Statistics also show that banning guns only encourages crime. According to a study by SUNY-University at Albany criminal justice professor Colin Loftin, Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976, and by 1991 its homicide rate had tripled. Meanwhile, the national homicide rate rose only 12 percent [2]. Now, obviously my opponent realizes that law enforcement and the military need to have weapons. In that case, I think it's perfectly reasonable that citizens should be able to arm themselves with the same protection (as I said, to ensure that American freedom is protected). If you think that this is an unreasonable protection, we only have to look to American history to see why this concern is relevant. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act that made it illegal for citizens to speak out against the national government. During World War II, Japanese Americans - citizens and resident aliens alike - were stripped of their property and herded into concentration camps without cause or trial. Perhaps American freedom isn't as safe as we all thought [1]. So, that brings us back to Pro's proposal for gun control. He submits that only those handling money, convenient store owners and cops should be allowed guns. Well not only do people reserve the right to have a gun for reasons other then these, but gun shop owners, gun makers, gun collectors and the like all have the right to have their products bought and sold. This economy works on the basis of supply and demand. If people didn't supply these guns legally with current gun laws as they stand (the federal government requires gun store owners to perform background checks on all consumers wishing to purchase firearms already), then individuals would just buy these guns illegally on the black market. This would create a huge illegal market and expand the influence of corrupt organizations like the mafia and street gangs which would sell these firearms illegally. Further, it kind of eliminates the purpose of a gun (safety and protection) to keep the limited from the people who need them or feel safer with them (since, as I've said, they've been proven to deter crime). People should be responsible and held accountable for how they utilize their right to bear arms. With that said, I'll send this debate back over to my opponent for now. Good luck! [1] http://media.www.thebatt.com... [2] http://www.mcrgo.org...