Gun control

To ensure that my rebuttal is accurate and cohesive, I'll break up each argument and rebuttal into numerical bullets. So without further adieu... 1. Pro condedes to the necessary gun use for hunting purposes and the military. However, Pro disagrees that citizens should arm themselves for protection. As I pointed out in the last round, handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year. I also pointed out that 56 percent of felons agreed that a criminal would not seek to mess with a victim that they knew was armed. Further, I noted that when handguns were banned, the national homicide rate tripled. All of these facts were cited and sourced. So, just because Pro and others haven't used guns for protection doesn't mean that other people don't or shouldn't. Therefore I have successfully pointed out via three sources why guns are a good source of protection, so this point fails. 2. Pro insists that having a gun won't help keep rulers honest, because people with guns realistically couldn't get anywhere near a man like the President. Haha - tell that to JFK. In all seriousness, I think I should convey the reality that the United States Constition grants its citizens the right to bear arms to avoid any kind of radical take-over from the government. The Second Amendment reads, "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." At the Constitional Convention, James Madison said, "The greatest danger to liberty is from standing armies." In this regard, after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and prior to the ratification of the Constitution, state constitutions secured the right to keep and bear arms. For example, Section 14 of the Declaration of Rights to Vermont's Constitution adopted in 1777 provides that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms, as standing armies are dangerous to liberty" [1]. In other words, this clause prevents a situation in which a citizen could not protect themself from the U.S. government (army or law enforcement) in a situation where a tyrannical or oppressive movement would ensue. Now, if Pro's argument would be the idea that this could never happen in our society, we'll refer back to the last round when I provided the example of Japanese Americans during WWII being stripped of their property and herded into concentration camps without cause or trial. Because this course of action is so unjust and commits a plethora of violations against constitutional rights, our government's founding documents would imply that these citizens had the right and perhaps the responsibility to fight back; supposing they were armed and could present a viable defense, it is reasonable to assume that this type of blatant infrginement of liberty would not have occurred. And even if it was inevitable in THAT particular situation, the point is that American freedom is a privilege that may not be as safe as we all assume. It's important to have the right to arm one's self for any reason if they so choose. 2. In response to the idea that the 2nd amendment makes other civil liberties we enjoy possible, Pro suggests that this is a point with absolutely no evidence to support it. To clarify what I meant, if not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government. Therefore, their rights would exist only at their government's discretion. 3. Next Pro talks about hunting for a bit and says once again that owning a gun for hunting is fine, but the only reason one should own a gun specifically to kill people would be if you are part of the military or law enforcement. This is what is called the "begging the question" fallacy, as here you'll see that Pro is making no real point to back up the resolution but rather just reiterating his opinion. I obviously I disagree with this statement. As I've said throughot the debate, I believe that the second amendment (the right to bear arms) is important for citizens to have the option to protect themselves from harm or the government itself. 4. Pro then says in regard to Hasan that even though the INDIVIDUAL was responsible for the crime and not the gun itself, that removing guns is a viable option so we can get rid of the means in which people kill. This to me makes no sense, as Hasan was part of the military and as such had access to guns. Of course he bought the alleged weapon from a gun store; however, you'll notice that this point directly correlates to one of my other points. I argued that even if these guns weren't for sale legally in a gun store that they would still be able to be purchased on the black market. As such, you'll never really be able to get rid of guns just as we haven't been able to get rid of things like marijuana. Like drugs, guns have a demand in the market meaning people will inevitably be selling them. As I've said, it's better to sell them legally where shop owners can perform legal and extensive background checks rather than leaving the gun dealing to crooks on the street. 5. Regarding the idea that I see murder as a necessary evil, yes, I do, in cases of self defense. Also, without getting too off topic, extensive sociological courses (and perhaps philosophy and criminal justice ones as well) will reveal that crime is in fact a necessary part of society; it helps society reestablish its values. Perhaps this logic won't make sense to Pro and I don't really have the time or inclination to explain it; however, I can assure you that this is a reality established in various contexts in an educational situation. For those who are interested, more on the subject can be found here [2] [3]. 6. Going back a little bit, in response to my statistic that 56 percent of felons said they wouldn't attack those they knew were armed, Pro replies, "I assume that most of us have arms and legs. the first thing you do is run away. If you can't run away, you kick them." Hmm. While I admire Pro's bravery, let's face it - we're most likely not going to kick a thief if we're being mugged, our house gets broken into, we're being held up somewhere, etc. The most popular reaction is to give into the perpetrator's demands. So, if the perp knew that the victim was armed, they most likely wouldn't bother them in the first place. Not to mention that this isn't even a debatable issue; the stats and facts are already in my favor on this point. 7. Regarding the paragraph beginning with, "You know, you're right. Speaking of which, I'm still trying to figure out what happened to that armored tank I ordered 2 months ago..." I'll just say that I have no idea what Pro is talking about. Obviously his sarcastic humor failed lol - either that or he just didn't make a cohesive argument here. I'd like for Pro to explain explicitly what he meant in this paragraph...? 8. Also, when I pointed out the freedoms being taken away from the government (i.e. free press), my point was once again to show how governments can be tyrannical and why it's not far fetched or should be considered naively out of the question that a government can't or wouldn't attempt to oppress citizens in some way. 9. I stand by my argument regarding people's right to make and sell gun products. We live in a free society; selling those things does not violate anyone elses rights and thus should be legal. 10. Guns being sold on the black market is illegal. The people involved in this activity are criminals who don't pay taxes and commit a plethora of other crimes, often related to violence and gang or mob activity. I'm out of characters, but highly doubt I need to expand on this point further anyway. [1] http://members.iimetro.com.au... [2] http://www.timothyjpmason.com... [3] http://www.usm.edu...