Round 1
PRO (Samantha Stein):
Let me start by saying this is not an anti-gun argument. This is me saying that there should be limitations on what kind of guns we allow on the market. Right now there are laws that ban assault rifles. Semi-automatic rifles can be considered assault rifles if they fulfill the standards set in place by the ban. However, overall is there really a need for semi-automatic rifles? Guns have their place in the world. They are great for hunting and self-defense. But there comes a time when we need to evaluate when too much is actually too much. Americans love to flaunt their freedom to bear arms. However, sometimes this freedom impedes on others’ freedoms. A handgun or concealed carry doesn’t harm other people unless it’s in defense of a wrongdoing. For example, if someone is breaking into your home and you choose to use a handgun in self-defense and protection of your property, by all means, go ahead. It’s when we allow people to own weapons that are legitimate killing machines that we start to have issues. Eliminating guns is impossible to do and it isn’t necessarily the answer. But some cracking down on regulations and what type of weapons people can own should be implemented.
CON (Josh Romanski):
The liberties this country was founded on are based on John Locke’s idea of natural rights. Those rights being Life, Liberty and Property. Integral to keeping those rights is the right of the individual to protect themselves from others who would trample them. This includes a would-be murderer or, most especially, a tyrannical government. A gun does not infringe on another person’s rights because it is an inanimate object, only another person can do that. Criminals are going to commit crimes whether or not it is against the law, it is impossible to legislate against bad intentions. Gun control isn’t about individual protection, it is about controlling legal guns in this country. Per the FBI in 2013 there were 12,253 homicides in America, 8,454 of them were committed with firearms. There were 285 homicides with a rifle, in the same year there were 1,490 homicides with a knife. This means someone is five times more likely to be killed with a knife than a rifle. Various sources found there are anywhere from 270-300 million firearms in America, which means, assuming all of the guns used in homicides were owned legally, guns are used safely every year 99.997% of the time. There are many laws on the books already about purchasing and keeping firearms. Should there be a law put into place limiting the ownership of semi-automatic weapons, it would only restrict legal ownership and create a larger black market. Criminals don’t care about the laws, so what will one more regulation do to prevent criminals from committing crimes they already intend to commit?
Round 2
Pro (Samantha Stein):
It’s not so much the guns that are the problem. It’s the power that people gain from having the guns that cause a bigger issue. Obviously, violence is an issue as well, regardless of the form it takes. It is true, also, that criminals are going to be criminals despite the law. The concern I have is the safety and security that we are entitled to within Life and Liberty. Right now, there are many bad people out there with access to guns. Most of the shootings we hear about are about people who are discovered or already known to be unstable. So should we limit what kind of weapons that person can apply to have? I think we should. If there is someone who has a psychosomatic issue, we should limit their ability to get firearms for the safety of themselves and others. We could say the same thing about their ability to own any form of weapon including knives, chemical or bow and arrows. There is without a doubt a bigger issue that needs to be addressed concerning safety and weaponry. However, to secure everyone’s safety, we have to start somewhere. Life, Liberty and Prosperity are all key values that we need to carry on as we progress. Times have changed since we first implemented the right to bear arms. We can’t rely on old rules from colonialism to keep up with a much more technologically advanced society and a much more advanced world.
Con (Josh Romanski):
The technology may have changed since the Bill of Rights was written but the Rights haven’t or the original purpose. The second amendment was written to protect against a tyrannical government. That is what the founders feared and it’s proven to be a healthy fear. Stalin, Mao, Castro and Hitler all took the guns from the people before murdering millions of them. The rights of an individual to protect their life from a tyrannical government or another individual should never be infringed. Many of the mass shootings that happen in this country can be linked to an area where individual rights to carry and defend themselves are restricted. These include Virginia Tech (2007), Fort Hood (2009), Newtown (2012), Aurora (2012) and Orlando (2016). In Colorado, the shooter drove 40 minutes passing by two other theaters until reaching the gun free theater. No one is guaranteed life, but the right to defend your life when all of the social safety nets fail should not be infringed. There are also laws on the books that should a doctor find a patient mentally unstable they must report to the government which then decides if that person can own firearms. The problem is getting the mentally ill to see a doctor. There must be a thin line tread with these laws because mental illness is subject to change over time. An example being that Hitler declared Jews mentally unfit to own firearms before he began his horrible atrocities against the Jewish people. This must always be considered because rights don’t come from the government, people are born with the unalienable right to life, liberty and property. Benjamin Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
One Response
Josh Romanski did a great job at responding and batting back the arguments made. It shows that he did his research and is educated on the subject and laws, not saying Samantha Stein wasn’t. Overall, a really good debate and interesting arguments made by the both sides.