Points: 1

The Second Amendment should be abolished

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 12 votes the winner is ...
TheRealNihilist
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,000
Points: 12
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Abolishing the Second Amendment is taking away freedoms. Here's why.

Let's start with a question. If they abolish the second amendment, who will most likely give up their guns, the law abiding citizens, or the criminals who are shooting people? The law abiding citizens, right? If the criminals aren't afraid of the criminal punishments for killing people (which can be life in prison or even, in some cases, the death penalty) I don't think they'll be afraid of the punishments for having an illegal weapon. Also, theoretically, now the criminals will be less afraid of breaking in houses because the owners (the law abiding citizens) can't protect themselves which will increase burglaries and robberies which will, again theoretically, increase homicides. Also many people find shooting fun. There are rifle and shotgun merit badges in Boy Scouts. Trap shooting is a sport. It's a relatively safe one, too. As far as I can see, so far, football and baseball are actually more dangerous (but if find something against that please tell me and give me a link) and I don't see anyone trying to ban footballs or baseball bats. So really it doesn't solve anything and will just make people mad.
Published:
I value life. The second amendment doesn't value the same thing since it is basically a right to bear arms. This doesn't lead to life being protected, it leads to death. The statistics state  people are dying. Whether it be murder, suicide etc. They are dying. By removing said guns we can eliminate the problem. My opponent would have to demonstrate how banning guns is worse because the amendment is worth more than life or banning doesn't help. I think the government should be put in place to maintain the safety of their citizens not give them things that can only harm their well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others. Since the government is put in place to maintain the safety of their citizens the government should ban guns. 

Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
I have nothing to rebut.

Thanks you to CommanderCornJuice
Added:
--> @Alec
>>Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?
No it is more of a hunch which what is more effective.
Here is cases where people survived jumping off a bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicides_at_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge#Suicide_rescue
States 34 people have survived.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5175460/
"For every successfully completed suicide there are more than 12 unsuccessful attempts.1 However, surviving an SIGSW is relatively rare and makes up only 1% of all failed suicide attempts"
Guess it is more than a hunch.
Contender
#56
Added:
--> @Alec
>>Someone who simply holds personal property procured through mutually beneficial agreements does not.
Slavery wasn't a mutually beneficial agreement.
Contender
#55
Added:
--> @Snoopy
"Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
Contender
#54
Added:
--> @Alec
"Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?"
Suicide is intentional self-inflicted homicide.
#53
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
The government needs to justify the imposition. Someone who simply holds personal property procured through mutually beneficial agreements does not.
#52
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?
#51
Added:
--> @Alec
>>I don’t know.
A gun.
Contender
#50
Added:
--> @Snoopy
>>In general principle, I would assume this is backward.
As a general principle this is not needed but this isn't a general conversation.
Contender
#49
Added:
"You would have to demonstrate why taking away guns is bad instead of stating taking away property is bad."
In general principle, I would assume this is backward.
#48
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I don’t know.
#47
Added:
--> @Snoopy
I am a pro life libertarian as of the time of this comment.
#46
Added:
--> @Alec
>>A gun has a high chance of killing someone, but jumping off a bridge has a high chance of causing death too.
Which one is more?
Contender
#45
Added:
--> @Alec
Aren't you inclined towards lliberty?
#44
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
A gun has a high chance of killing someone, but jumping off a bridge has a high chance of causing death too.
#43
Added:
--> @Snoopy
>>Slaves were not confiscated by the government...They were emancipated.
Do explain to me this again.
Children are given freedom what they like with their time supervised by their parents.
Slaves are not free to do what they like and they are supervised on what they are doing while receiving harsher punishment given they have no real familiarity with the slaves.
Contender
#42
#12
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
FF
#11
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
forfeit
#10
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Forfeited
#9
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
FF
#8
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Forfeiture
#7
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Concession.
#6
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
FF, pro's case wholly dropped.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con opens by implying that law abiding citizens don't shoot people, and their argument is that criminals (many of whom do shoot people) will be less scared of law abiding citizens if the 2nd amendment is abolished. Additionally, leisurely activities like trap shooting and those participated in the boy scouts might be less enjoyable, or treated disproportionately to other sports.
Pro brought Cons first point into question pointing out that the role of government probably shouldn't be the promotion of fear, which seems reasonable. Cons second point is self defeating as it is common knowledge the US constitution does not mention any sports.
Pro's case suggests the government should ban guns, which requires abolishing the 2nd amendment. They justify the imposition, implying that it will lead to immortality and there will be no more murder, suicide etc... As well, "I think the government should be put in place to maintain the safety of their citizens not give them things that can only harm their well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others" So given the context it appears pro contends the guns with no recreational value or practical utility should be prohibited by the government. Being in reference to the Constitution of the USA, I'm going to assume that the people in that jurisdiction would generally be aware that some guns are already put out of production by law, and the 2nd amendment does not mandate that the government give people arms, so Pro's motivation for repeal is questionable.
Con forfeits, and Pro wins by superior conduct.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con states his case, Pro states his case, and rebuts what Con said. Con can't defend his points and forfeits which is poor conduct. Pro doesn't forfeit R2, thus keeping his conduct mark intact.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con FF half of the debate, that's poor conduct