New Member Debate: (Domestic) Gun Proliferation

Hello once more, my thanks go to alto to have the patience to debate me. I can see already I may have my work cut out for me learning how to debate. I'd like to open by clarifying my stance-- the current dichotomy I am (trying to) argue is between more and less access to firearms. My topic states that I am arguing for Gun proliferation, not against current gun control per se. It's because of this that I stated, "I posit that gun control in the US is both unconstitutional and counter-productive." Which unfortunately narrowed my argument more than I intended. I cannot argue on this further than that was not my intention, (I know, bait and switch), so I ask for leniency-- but expect none. But onto the main points. ----------------------- C1. Founding Fathers ----------------------- 1. The argument I presented here was aimed at one my opponent never made in this debate, and as such I realize now I cannot argue against it as I had intended. The counter my opponent has put forth is that since the constitution is a living document, the current population is contracted with interpreting non-specific sections of the document. And whatever they choose to interpret it as is the right way to interpret it. I cannot argue that the constitution should not be a living document, but I do propose a distinction in interpretations. Good outcomes of interpretations include the addition of the freedom of movement and freedom of privacy. In these cases the supreme court ruled that these freedoms are implied, and that without them the rest can be rendered moot. However, interpretations have gone the other way, case and point Plessy v Ferguson where the supreme court ruled that state-sponsored segregation was constitutional. I put forth that some interpretations are not as good as others, and *generally* one can see that cases where adding freedoms are more often better interpretations than those that limit them. *I make this argument for personal, not state, rights* ----------------------- 2. My opponent states that the original intent of the amendment was to allow or citizenry the power to defend themselves in revolutionary times. And that since we no longer have to worry about british troops, the amendment is now vestigial. This could not be further from the truth. While the ability to bear arms would help the citizenry defend against an invasion, as I stated in round one, the intent of the amendment was not to "protect small towns from British invasion when revolutionary troops could not arrive in time". In reality the amendment was meant for several reasons, two more of which include the ability of a citizen to defend his person in ANY case, and also to assure the government cannot be unlawfully overthrown and our people subjected to an invalid state. An old adage is that when a dictator comes to power, the very FIRST thing they do is disarm the populace. A last point: My opponent says "The chances of a ground war in the States involving citizens is miniscule." There is a reason this could be possible: if all sides simply refuse to use nuclear warfare, and yet there is irreconcilable strife, a ground war is the only recourse. (unless we go for rock-paper-scissors) ----------------------- C2. Guns & Crimes ----------------------- 1. Included at the end of this paragraph are two possible sources of the data I had put forth in the previous round. The study you produced takes place many years after gun control went into effect in Britain, and as such does not pertain to the effects of gun control. >An article from a 2002 issue of Reason magazine, >a libertarian maghttp://reason.com... >A standard pro-gun website which includes sources. Includes statistics about Australia as well. >http://gunowners.org... 2. I was not saying that convenience store firefights are the solution, but rather the possibility of that scenario deters the crime. I cannot seem to find the actual quote, but it is touched upon in the previous reason source that the biggest fear of burglars is not the police, but instead armed home owners. Here are a few sources to compare gun-carry laws and other restrictions with crimes on a per state basis. Plus an interview. If you take a look at the statistics, there is no indication that gun control decreases crimes, and if anything concealed carry reduces crimes such as armed robbery. Interview: http://www.press.uchicago.edu... Gun crime by-state, with a graphic: http://www.guardian.co.uk... Gun Laws by-state, wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org... I simply don't have the time to make a trend-line, my apologies. It should be a citizen's right and prerogative to carry a firearm, not a state mandate either way. ----------------------- C3. Kitchen sink ----------------------- 1. It doesn't guarantee anything, only suggests a difference. If a child grows up spending every summer in the car with their family, they're more apt to pick up patterns in driving. This point is to reinforce that exposure to firearms not only doesn't hurt anyone in and of itself, but can actually play a positive role. 2. I will concede that I misunderstood, but as in C2, the proliferation of firearms may have a dampening effect on swings of emotion. Furthermore, depending on the type or caliber of the firearm, a knife or cudgel could result in an injury far more difficult to treat than a gunshot. 3. If we wish to argue about the extremes of our positions, then how far are we willing to go with laws and regulations? After all, think of all the lives we would save if we lowered the speed limit to 5mph-- we simply cannot trust each other not to try running us all down, or accidentally plowing into a gas station, (fireball explosion yes!) I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but rational discourse would ask for a reasonable compromise. I would not be opposed to a license system for young members of society, nor convict restrictions. This however is only due to a demonstrated lack of ability to act reasonably, and an assumed one that can be overturned. A standardized firearms course in public education like that for vehicles would be acceptable as well. One final thrust: Of the current gun regulations, there are absolute bans on weapons in several states, mostly focusing on 'assault rifles' and handguns. These are absolute bans and are my backup raison d'etre.