It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Round 3. BlackJackal V John Bull 1: Gun Control

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Gun control Laws in the US are not strict enough."

BlackJackal will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
John Bull 1 will argue against this proposition.

Each debator will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included as part of the argument in each post. This does not include references, no more than 5 of which can be included at the bottom of each post. Opening and closing statements must not contain any images or links in the argument, and must have no more than 3 references.

As a guide responses should be made within 24 hours, If the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit their replies and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.




posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Again, my thanks go out to Kano, the judges, the community and not the least my very accomplished opponent for making this an actuality.

Gun Control is an extremely volatile subject in today’s world. The topic of Gun Control can be found in the news every single day with either viewpoint being displayed. Regardless, the fact is that people die from guns and these tragic events can be prevented.

The main argument put forward against gun control is the second amendment of the constitution which reads as follows:


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


The 2nd amendment provides a very powerful privilege to the citizens of the US but great power comes with great responsibility. Gun control is often attributed with trying to rape individuals of their right to bear arms but effective gun control only keeps the guns out of the hands of the criminals.

Many individuals believe that the second amendment is absolute and unmovable yet in actuality it is far from it. The first amendment of the constitution lays out the right to free speech but this does not mean you can say whatever you want wherever you would like. Can you go to a pre-school and curse like a sailor? What about sacrificing a female virgin to satisfy your God? Well you’re supposed to have freedom of religion right?

The second amendment is not absolute in any way. Do we allow convicts to bear arms? Of course not but if you take a literal definition of the amendment you would allow them that right. The second amendment need not be infringed to have effective gun control, all we have to do is work together on the important issue of saving lives.

Statistics are often brought in to the fray to show only a small percentage of group X died by firearms compared to drowning, electrocution, or automobile accidents. Yet, even though more people are hit by Mack trucks than by gun shot does that make that persons life any less important? If you could prevent a person from being murdered, would you? This is the question at hand my friends.

The fact is that every single day people die from firearms and those incidents can be barred. Again you may hear “it’s not the guns it’s the people”. Nevertheless, preventing these people from accessing the firearms in the first place will go a long way toward solving our problem with firearm violence. When was the last time you heard about a disgruntled employee going on a stabbing spree?

Currently on the books in the US 22,000 gun laws exist on the local, state and federal level. The problem with current gun control is two fold. First current gun laws need to be consolidated and updated to allow law enforcement the ability to correctly enforce them. Secondly, the laws need to become more proactive rather than reactive and the punishments more harsh. Gun control does work if enforced properly as proven in many countries across the globe.

If this restructuring and more restrictive gun laws could save just one solitary life would it be worth it? What if that life was your spouse, child, mother, father, sibling or friend would it be worth it then? How many lives must be at stake before you will consider acting?

Effective gun control is needed today however many are not willing to act. I ask you throw your prejudices aside and remember.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

Edmund Burke



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The U.S.A is huge.

From Tropics to Arctic wastes,from vast prairie lands to towering mountain ranges,from barren deserts to thriving cities,the U.S.A has every enviroment that ever challenged mankind.

The U.S Constitution gives U.S citizens the right to bear arms.

Federal law stipulates basic laws on the possession,dealership,and shipping of Firearms.

And State law adds to Federal law further stipulations on possession and safety depending on the democratic wish of State residents and the enviromental circumstances in that state.

Now this leaves me with a problem.

The debate title proposes that "Gun control Laws in the US are not strict enough." Thus making the case for change but change in State laws are always being made.

The Constitution is a constant in all of this.The basic right can not be taken away.

Federal law is the minimum law required law concerning firearms.The state law reflects the different circumstances a Citizen in Juneau might face as opposed to a Citizen from New York.

This seems quite sensible to me.

I know as a Brit ,a country with strict firearms laws, that if I was likely to regularly come across Polar Bears while walking around London I too might want to be able to protect myself.Luckily for me England is much safer.No Bears,Big cats,or Alligators here.

One Firearm law for all ?

Is that reasonable when U.S citizens face such different and often demanding challenges everyday.

Federal law must be the bedrock on which State law is built.There is no need to erode that bedrock.

State law is always changing.Ironically that is it's one constant on this issue and so I'm please to defend that constant of change because it reflects the democratic wishes of the people.

Other factors play a part too.

U.S history and developement which we will no doubt talk about later.

I'd like to finish this opening with a few facts I have learnt living in a country that,as I said earlier,has very strict firearms laws.

1/ If a suicide does not have a gun he will take pills,jump from a building,or slit his wrists.Suicide rates. in the UK continue to rise despite ever stricter gun laws.

2/If a murderer doesn't have a gun he will use a knife,poison,or a rope.Murder rates in the UK continue to rise despite ever stricter gun laws.

3/ A criminal doesn't care about gun laws.A criminal will always find a gun if he wants one.In the UK it is illegal to own a gun.Yet guncrime is rising.Law abiding citizens don't own guns but the criminals that often shoot them do.

Make all the laws you want but the people you really don't want to have guns will be the ones who will always get hold of them.The only people who obey the laws are their victims.


Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.

Edmund Burke



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The timeless wisdom of Edmund Burke is very clear. Bad laws are indeed the worst sort of tyranny yet; effective gun control is far from bad law. Effective firearm control saves lives. A law that is capable of saving lives is far from bad.

The connotation of gun control to most is the removal of their ability to obtain and use firearms. In actuality, effective gun control is a balancing act between allowing law abiding citizen’s access and barring criminals. To totally remove the peoples rights to firearms would effectively allowing the strong to oppress the weak. If we remove the weapons from the hands of the criminals and put them in the hands of the peaceable citizens crime then confronts a difficult pass. There is an old adage “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”, effective gun control would put criminals in just that situation.

Gun control in the US gets a bad rap because lawmakers are so closed minded. It seems all our lawmakers in the US can do is ban more and more guns when the real solutions have little or no legislation. Effective gun control while in part prevents certain members of society from obtaining firearms is quite multifaceted. The current laws aimed at correcting gun violence in America are in most cases simply missing the mark and the laws that can actually help with the problem are extremely lax.


America fails to incarcerate violent criminals. In 1960, 738 criminals were sent to prison for every 1,000 violent crimes, but by 1980, the number of criminals sent to prison per 1,000 violent crimes dropped to 227, and the crime rate tripled. Over 60,000 criminals convicted of violent crime every year _ murder, rape, robbery or aggravated assault _ are not sent to prison. Of America's 4.3 million convicted criminals, only 26% are in prison. The remaining 74% are serving "sentences" of parole or probation, free on the streets.[1]


In the US today one can murder at age twenty and expect to be a free man by the time he is forty. This is simply not a tough enough penalty to deter criminals especially when you take into account the comfortable living provided by American prisons. Even the NRA supports stiffer penalties for gun crimes.[2] We have to make the risk so great criminals will choose another career path. Again effective gun control is not removing the right to firearms from lawful citizens yet the laws in this area are extremely negligent.

Another huge problem here in the US is accidental deaths from firearms. In 1995 there were 1,225 fatal gun accidents in the United States.[3] This statistic is heartbreaking because all of the deaths could have been prevented if the proper precautions were used. However, due to lack of education in firearms the vast majority of gun owners are clueless to those precautions. The law should require gun purchasers take mandatory firearm training classes before receiving their guns. Again the NRA supports this proposal[2] as well yet the government is slow to act.

Gun control is not exclusively limited to guns because guns themselves do not kill, people do. To effectively eliminate gun violence we must also deal with the reasons people commit crime in the first place. Study after study has found a direct correlation between the lack of education and violent crime.[4] All the while here in the US we continue to rape the budgets for K-12 education. Improved education is essential to winning the war on gun violence. Seems so simple doesn’t it, yet currently the US is doing little to rectify this problem.

Currently in the US if you are 18 you can purchase a rifle or shotgun, and at 21 any other firearm type. Not a big deal right? Take this statistic into consideration the demographic of ages 18-20 while only accounting for 4% of the population accounted for 24% of the total gun homicides in the US.[5] You may ask yourself why do these young people kill the way they do. One possible reason is the lack of education we have in our society producing angry young men as a substitute for educated young men. Another possible reason is simply immaturity. Whatever the reason why not raise the minimum age to purchase firearms to 25. Doing so would allow those people with pent up anger against the world time to work things out before they could obtain a gun.



The bottom line is gun control is saving lives from gun violence. The plain and simple truth is the current policy on gun control in the US is too lax and something has to be done. Inaction leads to more death from guns, is that acceptable?


[1] www.firearmsandliberty.com...
[2] www.nraila.org...
[3] www.hpjc.org...
[4] www.justicepolicy.org...
[5] www.ustreas.gov...



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Firstly,I have to point out that the above post contravenes the rules of this debate.I don't want to appear petty and so I'll leave it to the judges to take that into account.

The ambiguous nature of the topic title already leaves me with a technical disadvantage without having to waste my precious word allocation pointing out BlackJackal's rule infringements.

When I say "ambiguous nature" I want to make it clear that I relish the opportunity to defend the position I have been given.I am simply pointing out what should be obvious to anyone following this debate.The term "Laws in the U.S" can technically include Constitutional law,Federal law, State law,or even all three.Not only that but Firearms laws cover such diverse subjects as to incude Possession,Dealership,Transportation,Safety,and more.This leaves BlackJackal with an extremely wide front to attack on and I am unfortunately left to take a reactive position here rather than the proactive one I prefer.

To make this a little easier for myself I have developed a clear position.

1/ I am defending the U.S constitution.

2/ I am defending the basic need for a legal foundation on firearms laws as seen in Federal law.

3/ I am defending the rights of U.S citizens living in diverse circumstances to top up Federal law through their elected State legislator as they see fit as they are in a better position than centralised government to understand their local needs.

Using his "wide front" to full advantage, BlackJackal's opening post was used to attack the U.S Constitution.

However, after my initial reply BlackJackal concedes that:


To totally remove the peoples rights to firearms would effectively allowing the strong to oppress the weak.


So I'm assuming that the Constitutional issue has been dealt with.The right under Constitutional law is not in question.We are simply dealing with the legal restrictions that that right exists under.

BlackJackal opens the above post by questioning my use of a quote by Edmund Burke.I can't linger on this too long but suffice it to say that the worst kind of law, and thus tyranny, is to take away the right of the individual to defend themself.

If BlackJackal's front was not wide enough he then starts suggest that judicial sentencing and even education are also fair topics for this debate.

For this debate to have any chance of a coherent argument I think we should leave sentencing to Judges,Education to teachers,and while we're at it health to doctors.fires to firemen,and for that matter China to Chinamen.

BlackJackal raises the safety issue of guns which I think is a fair issue and many States have implented gun safety legislation at the behest of those that elect the legislators.With about 60,000,000 firearms already in the U.S.A it is hard to see just how effective legislation would be.It would be far better if manufacturers led the way on this issue rather than passing ineffective law and of course those that buy guns should be encouraged to take safety into account.This comes down to education and supply and demand neither of which need to be legal issues.

BlackJackal then moves on to suggest that the minimum required age of handgun owners should be raised.He does this using a graph which he suggests backs his argument that gun owners should be 25.

Putting aside the issue that this suggestion denies adults ,who can vote and be drafted in times of war, their rights under the U.S Constitution.

Also putting aside the most obvious conclusion when confronted with that graph that it indicates that gun crimes are more likely to be committed by those when they first have the opportunity to commit them thus raising the age will only succeed in shifting the emphasis of the graph to the right.

Putting aside all that BlackJackal has still not addressed the facts that I know to be true from living in a country with some of the strictest firearms legislation in the world.

A criminal will always find a gun.A criminal by definition does not care how strict gun laws are.Only honest citizens who are often the victims obey laws.

A murderer if he does not have a gun will find another way to kill.

Now I think I've replied to all of BlackJackals diverse arguments I think it's time he addressed those two points rather that stretching the context of this debate even thinner.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
To begin I would like to clarify; my previous post did not violate any rules of this debate. There was a simple misunderstanding of the rules JB1 and I worked out behind the scenes.

At this point in the debate clarification on the topic at hand is crucial. “Gun control Laws in the US are not strict enough” is the issue at hand. The pro argument is accountable for arguing the existing laws on gun control are not strict enough and the con argument is empowered to argue the current laws are either fine as they are or too strict. Gun Control laws are not restricted to preventing citizens from obtaining guns, on the contraire they include any law preventing death due to guns. To be clear this is a diverse theme and in order to provide proper clarity numerous areas must be discussed.

As for the 2nd amendment my position has not wavered. The gun controls I advocate will only remove the guns from the criminals. Currently in the US there are ten categories of people barred from obtaining guns.[1] These groups include convicts and mentally ill individuals yet a literal translation of the 2nd amendment would not only allow them access to guns but everyone access to even nukes, yes nukes are arms too. While all of these preclusions are useful there should be more. For example, individuals fired within the last 60 days should also be ineligible to purchase firearms.

Judges hand down sentences but the law mandates minimum and maximum penalties for crimes. These guidelines need to reflect harsher penalties for gun crimes.

It would be wonderful if gun manufacturers took it upon themselves to help promote gun safety, however all the major safety advancements in firearms has taken place because of laws prodding the industry to act. Manufacturers excuse there inaction by saying changes would make guns more expensive. Also manufacturers cannot require purchasers take mandatory training classes, laws can.

Raising the minimum age of gun ownership raises many questions but the facts are more people aged18-20 commit more gun crimes than any other demographic. If giving up gun ownership until age 25, or even a conservative 21, would save lives would you do it? If one of those lives were of a loved one would you do it then? The question is how many lives lost to gun violence do you find acceptable.


A criminal will always find a gun.A criminal by definition does not care how strict gun laws are.Only honest citizens who are often the victims obey laws


This is where gun control takes on a new form. Now gun control works to eliminate the need for crime itself. Laws and policies funneling more money to education would work to eliminate crime in itself reducing gun violence in turn. Eliminating crime eliminates the criminals that seek the guns plain and simple.


A murderer if he does not have a gun will find another way to kill.


Premeditated murder will always take place regardless of the weapon this is a fact of human nature. Nevertheless, removing firearm access from those likely to commit violent crimes will reduce the amount of gun violence in all other situations by reducing firearm availability. It is impossible to completely eradicate violence in humanity but we can reduce the ability of the violent to kill multiple people at a time. Remember a knife is ineffective in mass murder and incredibly limited in range.

Many violent criminals, ineligible to purchase firearms themselves, acquire guns from individuals who buy guns in bulk. Why not limit the number of weapons a person can purchase during a time period.

There are small lightweight guns currently on the market that are unreliable making them ineffective at self defense. These weapons often referred to as “Saturday Night Specials” or “junk guns” have special appeal to criminals for being easily concealable. Why not ban these weapons they are too unreliable to be of use in self defense.

Even a law requiring trigger locks to be equipped on all firearms while simple can prevent accidental death.

Gun shows is the easiest way to sell and acquire arms because there are no requirements on background checks. When you purchase a gun at a dealer you are required to undergo a background check. However, at a gun show non dealers sell guns and therefore a background check is not required by law. Background checks should be obligatory at every gun show.

Gun control in the US is extremely lax and needs to be strengthened. Once more the gun control laws America needs do not infringe law abiding citizen’s rights to self defense. Again the question; are you comfortable with the number of deaths caused by gun violence in America today?



[1] www.nraila.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:12 AM
link   
This is the full list of those barred from aquiring or owning firearms under Federal law.

1/ Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.

2/ Fugitives from justice.

3/ Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.

4/ Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.

5/ Illegal aliens.

6/ Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.

7/ Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.

8/ Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.

9/ Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.

10/Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

As you can see the list is fairly comprehensive.So if there is an issue is it not have more to do with enforcing existing laws rather than making new ineffective ones ?

Now,the judges will have seen that I've tried to answer the points raised by BlackJackal but let's look at the answer BlackJackal has given me on the only two points I'v asked him to reflect on.

If you remember I stated that:

A criminal will always find a gun.A criminal by definition does not care how strict gun laws are.Only honest citizens who are often the victims obey laws.

And BlackJacals reply?


This is where gun control takes on a new form. Now gun control works to eliminate the need for crime itself.


Utopia!

Yes,that's right BlackJackal thinks that there won't be any crime if there is just stricter gun control.A claim simply not borne out by the facts.

My other point,one of the few issues I've raised in this debate was:

A murderer if he does not have a gun will find another way to kill


Premeditated murder will always take place regardless of the weapon this is a fact of human nature. Nevertheless, removing firearm access from those likely to commit violent crimes will reduce the amount of gun violence in all other situations by reducing firearm availability.


First he concedes the point I'm making.Then he goes on to say that "those likely to commit violent crimes" should not have guns.

Look again at the list at the top.Those likely to commit violent crimes are already barred under law.This is not a case for stricter laws only enforcing the laws that already exist.

Come on BlackJackal.I accept you concession on the second point but I've only raised a few points and I do not accept that the U.S.A will be crime free if there were stricter gone control.

That simply isn't going to be good enough in this debate.

BlackJackal raises so many points.There's no specific argument just a general push with no direction.

"Junk Guns" appear to be an issue he feels should be a priority.Guns,he says, that are "ineffective" when I would have thought that effective guns would be more of a concern.

"Trgger locks" is another one.I've made my argument consistent and clear.Many States already have laws on trigger locks.That is an issue for State legislator democratically elected to reflect the will of the people and not central government.

"Gun Shows" :This is simply a case of robustly enforcing existing laws not making new ineffective laws.

Sentencing: BlackJackal states that:


In the US today one can murder at age twenty and expect to be a free man by the time he is forty.


Expect ???

Well it's not the word I would have used.Judges already have wide ranging powers of discretion.In many cases they can expect to receive the death penalty.

Education: You don't need new law to educate people about guns.You can do it on TV or even in schools.(now there's an idea.Education in schools.How novel.

So,what we see is that we don't need new stricter laws.We just need to enforce the laws we already have more rigorously.

More ineffective laws for criminals to ignore ?

More defenceless victims ??

And that's a Utopian society ???


Come on BlackJackal ! You're going to have to do alot better than that if you want to win this debate.You haven't laid a glove on me yet.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   

BlackJackal raises so many points.There's no specific argument just a general push with no direction.


The thrust of my arguments has always been saving lives. I thought that to be self explanatory but it seems I must spell it out.


The ambiguous nature of the topic title already leaves me with a technical disadvantage ………

Using his "wide front" to full advantage……

I've only raised a few points…….

You haven't laid a glove on me yet………


To be exact JB1 you have only raised two points while I rose numerous. You are going to need many more than two points to win this debate.

I concede I have yet to land a punch on you but that is not where I’m aiming; my foe is the issue at hand. I suggest spending less time complaining about what side you were handed or attacking your opponent’s debate style and more time on points.

Quickly let me cover JB1’s retorts since there is much more to discuss

Junk Guns- guns that are ineffective yet criminals prefer what is wrong with banning them?

Gun Shows- That’s the problem! There are no existing laws to enforce!

Trigger Locks- JAMA has reported findings that in the states with these laws children are 23% less likely to die from Firearm accidents than in states without them.[2] JB1 what is wrong with saving lives?

Sentencing- Again laws are needed to increase the penalties associated with gun crimes to such a level criminals find the risk of the crime too high. Currently they are too lax.

Education- New laws and policies are needed to funnel money to schools currently not capable of educating effectively.

JB1 seems to think I am looking for Utopia on the contraire I am looking to save lives. 453,737 is the number of violent crimes and murders committed in the US with firearms in 2002.[1] Make no qualms about it JB1 is content with this number because as the old adage goes “If you continue to do the same things expect the same results”. This brings me back to Edmund Burke’s quote:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

[1]


More ineffective laws for criminals to ignore


JB1 argues that gun laws are ineffective let me point out two crucial points. In 1994 a steep drop in gun crimes and in 1998 the numbers trend northward again. Let me explain the reasons behind those changes; in two words gun control. The Brady bill was signed into law in 1994 and marked a 4 year decline in gun crimes however in 1998 under the “sunset provision” the 5 day waiting period required by the Brady bill was removed.[3]

This proves two things:


  • Gun Control Works!
  • The 5 day waiting period worked and needs to be brought back



More defenceless victims


JB1 you still haven’t got it. Effective Gun control only removes the guns from the hands of the criminals. By removing the guns from the criminals but allowing law abiding citizen’s access to firearms criminals get the shaft. Do you have a problem with laws that remove guns from criminals? Yes I suppose you do since you are content with 10,857 murders by firearms[1], the most of any country, as well.

Another major issue at hand is the need for smart guns. Smart guns are firearms that only fire at the hands of the guns owner. In 1994 the National Institute of Justice funded the initial smart gun project but failed to come up with a suitable prototype. Since that time gun manufacturers have dragged their feet on creating reliable technology to make smart guns a reality.

Laws are needed that force gun manufacturers to develop effective smart gun technology. Effective smart guns would prevent everyone except the owner from firing the weapon. In turn this would eliminate police death from having their weapons wrestled away from them, home intruders using home owners weapons on them and accidental death of children to name a few.

JB1 again the manufacturers do not lead the way they only complain, laws are needed to force them to act in the name of safety.

Gun control is about saving the lives of neighbors, friends, family and loved ones not about taking away your guns or your right to bear arms. The stigma of the name often turns people off from the outset but if more knew the true nature of gun control then maybe we will get the laws we need to dispose of this troublesome issue of gun crime.

Ask yourself are you content with 453,737 gun crimes and murders when there is something that can be done.


[1] www.ojp.usdoj.gov...
[2] www.bradycampaign.org...
[3] www.bradycampaign.org...



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Well,I've made an awful lot more that two points.I just haven't been the one to raise the issues that they refer to.I'll remind everyone of a comment I made earlier in the debate.


This leaves BlackJackal with an extremely wide front to attack on and I am unfortunately left to take a reactive position here rather than the proactive one I prefer.


Though the word Utopia was first used by me I think it accurately reflects what you said earlier.


This is where gun control takes on a new form. Now gun control works to eliminate the need for crime itself.


You sate that gun control would work to eliminate crime itself.This is extremely naive and not borne out by the facts established in countries that have strict gun control.

You have not once refered to these examples.

In Britain violent crime is rising.Gun crime is rising.All crime is rising and has been rising despite increasingly draconian gun laws.

Violent crime has always existed and it always will.No initiative will lead to a crime free society.If Kane had had a gun he'd have no doubt shot Abel but he didn't have a gun yet Abel still was killed.

Guns are tools.Guns don't murder people.People murder people.

No doubt you'll deny that is what you meant.This has been a pattern throughout this debate,there has been a lack of consistency and focus in your stated position.It's been rather like watching a unicyclist carrying a large stack of plates,back and forward,over compensating for each loss of balance.

We saw it with your initial comments on the Constitution.


To totally remove the peoples rights to firearms would effectively allowing the strong to oppress the weak.


Only to be retracted once it was pointed out.

We saw it again with your insistence that laws were needed for a change in education emphasis.This has slowly become "New laws and policies are needed".As you've realised that new laws are not needed just policy and direction.

Now,I laid out my position very early on.I'll repeat it now.

1/ I am defending the U.S constitution.

2/ I am defending the basic need for a legal foundation on firearms laws as seen in Federal law.

3/ I am defending the rights of U.S citizens living in diverse circumstances to top up Federal law through their elected State legislator as they see fit as they are in a better position than centralised government to understand their local needs.


The reason for my position on State law is quite simple.With 50 states all with different gun laws, some even pending,it is virtually impossible to defend a unified position.Yet all states carry at it's gun law foundation, Federal law.The principle of the right of States to decide independent legislation on issues important to their State residence is an important principle to defend and a far greater principle than any one issue including firearms laws.

BlackJackal raises the issue of safety.This is a very important point but one decided by states.California has different laws to Alaska.I would have thought anyone could see that the circumstances citizens in these two states face are different and that the individual state is in the best position to decide and not central government.

If the Federal laws were enforced then they could tackle the issue of "gun fairs"

Federal law disqualifies many from owning guns but it is the guns that are illegally obtained that ,more often then not, are used to commit crime.

This is the most important issue.

Criminals don't obey the law only honest citizens do.If you make stricter laws the criminals still won't obey them only the honest citizens will leaving themselves unable to defend themselves.

There are around 60 million firearms in the U.S.A according to the NRA.Those 60 million firearms aren't going to just disappear overnight and they are going to fall into the wrong hands.If you wish you need to be able to defend yourself.

Nobody is saying that it's a good thing to have 60 million guns floating around but it's a fact just like Polio.If you know polio was prevalent would you accept a law that stopped you from getting a vaccination yet did nothing to curtail the disease ??

You know guns exist and that criminals will always find them.Are you going to accept any law that made it financially or physically impossible for you to defend yourself ??

Pragmatism is what is needed on this issue.It's no good bemoaning the fact that guns exist or that they are in the wrong hands.You have the right to defend yourself that is the only solution.60 million guns aren't going to disappear overnight.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The US today is consumed with firearm violence. Thousands die at the hands of gun crime every year. Don’t fool yourself this is a malignant disease that left unchecked will only grow. So what can we do? The answer is simple; gun control is the proven remedy. Also this remedy need not rape law abiding citizens of their right to bear arms.


effective gun control only keeps the guns out of the hands of the criminals


This quote taken from my opening outlines my stance on the 2nd amendment and what gun control needs to be in the US. Effective gun control leads to more law abiding citizens being educated and armed all the while removing gun access from the criminals. Something we currently do not have due to lax and inexistent laws.

Anti Gun Control advocates fall back on the 2nd amendment every time this issue is raised however as JB1 agreed the 2nd amendment needs exceptions. Currently there are exceptions for 10 groups which JB1 agrees on, however the constitution does not state any exceptions. If your entire stance rests upon constitutional rights that you agree are not absolute then what leg do you have to stand on?

Throughout this debate I have shown gun control works. Let me point to a few as reference:


  • Study after study demonstrates the correlation between violence and the uneducated. Increased education decreases crime and in turn firearm violence.
  • In states with trigger lock laws on the book children are 23% less likely to die than in ones without.
  • The Brady Bill dramatically reduced gun crimes
  • The 5 day waiting period removed under the sunset provision


I have also proposed several other laws to help cure this epidemic.


  • Mandatory firearm training classes
  • Stiffer penalties for Gun Crimes
  • Raising the Minimum age to purchase firearms
  • One gun a month laws to prohibit bulk buying
  • ”Saturday Night Special” Bans
  • Gun Show Laws
  • Laws requiring Manufacturers to create Smart Guns


At least two of the above proposed laws would not be necessary if gun manufacturers would take the lead in the war on gun crime. However these companies seem more interested in their bottom line than in the body bag count.

Guns are not simple weapons they can kill at range and kill many. It is our responsibility to take the guns out of the killer’s hands. Otherwise the blood of thousands will rest on our heads.

Ultimately, the US has a disease plaguing its citizens. This disease need not be fatal for it has a cure. For some time many have believed the cure to be worse than the disease, however as I have shown in this debate the cure works. The cure only eliminates gun crimes all the while promoting gun ownership for the just. On the other hand, inaction only leads to another half million gun crimes in the US.

The choice is yours.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 03:52 AM
link   
First,I'd like to thank BlackJackal for his gentlemanly conduct throughout this debate.

But has he won ??

Has he persuaded you that individual State residents should no longer have the right to decide their own laws topping up Federal law ??

Has he persuaded you that criminals will obey any new laws and that if you obey them you would be safer ??

Does any of BlackJackals assertions of what a gun free society might look like ring true ??

Do examples from around the world show societies moviong toward a climate where stricter gun control will "eliminate the need for crime itself."

On a purely strategic point of view I have found BlackJackal's position to be inconsistant and unfocused.Perhaps the wide front of his argument has been the cause of this.Instead of focusing on one aspect of gun law which could be stricter, which is all he needed, he has attacked on many fronts and not really got behind my very simple defence.

I think there is a lesson there for all would be debators.How you marshal your argument is just as important as how many arguments you have.

This debate is now close.

Far too close considering the obvious advantages of BlackJackal's position.

This debate should never have been this close.

I should have had my butt whipped bigtime.

But I have not

It is not always the close winner of the argument who is the winner of the debate.

And this is a debating competition not an argument.

This has been my position.

1/ I am defending the U.S constitution.

2/ I am defending the basic need for a legal foundation on firearms laws as seen in Federal law.

3/ I am defending the rights of U.S citizens living in diverse circumstances to top up Federal law through their elected State legislator as they see fit as they are in a better position than centralised government to understand their local needs.


Has BlackJackal breached that defensive position ?

This has been my pragmatic argument against stricter undemocratic laws.

A criminal will always find a gun.A criminal by definition does not care how strict gun laws are.Only honest citizens who are often the victims obey laws.

Are you really satisfied that if you give up your right of defense criminals will give up the tools of their offense ??

What is needed is a stricter enforcement of existing laws not new ineffective laws.

At the very least I think we can all agree that this would be a good first step after looking at the results of stricter enforcement then the issues raised by BlackJackal can be looked at again.

My feeling though is that stricter enforcement will negate the need for stricter laws but that is unknowable unless we try it first.

JB1



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Pulled the chocks on the judgemobile, results in a day or so.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
BlackJackal defeats John Bull 1 by a margin of 6-2.

Judges Comments:

Kind of a surreal debate, as much about the debate as the topic. Both did well, but JB's dissatisfaction with his draw bled through and hurt him.


JB1 takes the cake on this one. He never seemed to waiver from his position, unlike BJ. Living in one of the cities of the US with the worst gun crime problems though, it was hard to hold back my own opinions. JB1 is right though, if someone wants a gun bad enough, they'll get it.


The confident pace each debator took was intriguing, as BlackJackal placed his in research and informed thoughts and John Bull 1 certainly gets my attention for his expression of personal opinion. BlackJackal's close really swayed me...well written.


This was the interesting debate until now, especially because of the different styles of debating. John Bull responded well to BlackJackal's arguments and BlackJackal, as always, took care to reference his arguments. I do think, and no offence is meant, that John Bull should take a good look at his punctuation. It's nonstandard and that makes it a bit more difficult to read. I'll not use this in my judging of the debate though.

I think BlackJackal was going a bit too far to include education in the group of all gun control laws.

I also fail to see why the constitution always has to be right. The subject is not "The gun control laws should be made stricter", but "gun control laws in the US are not strict enough". You can't use current laws to defend the position that laws are not strict enough. We may have to respect the constitution when we make laws, but this doesn't change the fact that gun control should or should not be made stricter. Unless the constitution is always right...

Although John Bull had the more difficult side, I think he could defended his position better. BlackJackal has won this debate.


In my opinion, BlackJackal won this one because he fought it on his own terms and was able to provide a clear and concise argument without any real interruption. JB1 is such an awesome fighter but this time he was faced with a difficult position to fight from and never really brought it home for me. Congrats to both.


Very tough debate and both should be proud of their contributions. I just felt that JB1 was sometimes too forceful in trying to come out on top and it showed, whilst BJ just got on with the job at hand.


Well done to John Bull 1, but we must now say goodbye to the reigning champion. BlackJackal now takes on Phoenix for the title.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join