Assault Rifle Control ~ Debates!

Debates between editors:

Elana Wallach, arguing against

Alexander Adams, arguing in favor

The topic: Is Assault Rifle Control morally and politically acceptable in modern society?

 

Round 1: Opening-ish Statements

Alex: Assault rifle control is a terrible idea for our modern society for many reasons. If we tell the citizens of the United States that they may not own an assault rifle, then the law abiding citizens will  wreak havoc on the country. We also have the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the second amendment of the constitution. An assault rifle can be used for defense, sport, fun, and show. Naive up their assault rifles, while the non-law abiding citizens won’t. This leaves the law-abiding citizens defenseless, and the criminals mayo matter it’s use, as long as being used legally, any registered assault rifle owner may use his assault rifle for all legal activities he chooses at his discretion.

 

Elana: Why would one want any gun, in the first place? I suppose a firearm could be used for sport… could be fun (very dangerous, however). People sometimes collect the things as souvenirs, like Pokemon cards (although, why would you collect guns when you could play Pokemon?). I suppose the most common argument for the rights to public and free firearm use these days is this: protection. This argument of protection, however, is completely invalid in my opinion. In the first place, the country of The United States of America goes to great lengths to protect their citizens from every kind of danger (and let me just say 99% of seriously threatening danger cannot be defended by a gun, for example: identity theft, cyber-trolling, deadly viruses, illnesses and diseases, suicide, etc.). The simplest point to claim, as much as it pains me to have to point it out, is this: if nobody had a gun in the first place, nobody would be in danger. If we want protection, why not go the extra mile to make a change, to make a difference in the world? By decreasing and de-promoting public gun use, the world could potentially become a better and more peaceful place to live.

 

Does Homer agree?

Does Homer agree?

Round 2: Rebuttals

 

Alex: “Why would one want any gun, in the first place?” asks my opponent. People may want a gun for home defense, sport, or even show. This is their right. “The United States of America goes to great lengths to protect their citizens from every kind of danger (and let me just say 99% of real danger cannot be defended by a gun, for example: identity theft, cyber-trolling, deadly viruses, illnesses and diseases, suicide, etc.)”  A gun may be used for more than defense. And though it may not be useful against this, it is still useful in some defenses. I would also like to point out your claim: “99% of real danger cannot be defended by a gun,” Where did you get this statistic? It sounds much like an over-exaggeration. Also, you claim these are “real danger” circumstances. How is cyber-trolling a real danger?

My next point is this: “The simplest point to claim, as much as it pains me to have to point it out, is this: if nobody had a gun in the first place, nobody would be in danger. If we want protection, why not go the extra mile to make a change, to make a difference in the world? By decreasing and de-promoting public gun use, the world could potentially become a better and more peaceful place to live.” The unfortunate truth is this: No matter what, there will always be somebody with a gun. The world will never be a peaceful place, due to basic human instinct and nature. Humans are the second deadliest animal on Earth by kills, second to mosquitoes spreading disease. If all good hearted and/or law abiding citizens and officers let their guns go away, the criminals would essentially overtake society, being the only ones with guns. Massive chaos would ensue, and we would be living in an apocalyptic society.

 

Elana: Before I rebuttal to my opponent’s claims above, MAY I ASK THIS ONE QUESTION. When you state, “A gun may be used for more than defense,” what do you mean by “more than defense,” EXACTLY?

Also, before I end this brief rebuttal, may I add that in the 1950s, Martin Luther King Jr. Could have said the same thing, Mr. Adams: “No matter what, there will always be somebody with a gun. The world will never be a peaceful place, due to basic human instinct and nature.” Only, replace the word “gun” with with “racism,” in that statement. If we humans keep thinking like that, nothing will change. If kids have any self-doubts before a test, they will fail… studies prove this (the same applies here!).

 

Alex: As previously stated, “An assault rifle can be used for defense, sport, fun, and show.” Each of these activities is legal, and we may own a gun to do these activities by our second-amendment right.

My opponent states “Only, replace the word ‘gun’ with with ‘racism’” when talking of Martin Luther King Junior. Criminals don’t hold racism in their hand, and shoot someone with it. “You’re black and I dislike you for that!” “Oh no, that hurts so much I’m gonna die!” As harsh as that sentence may seem, it is true. Racism and guns are two different things. Speaking of Martin Luther King Junior, he was killed by a criminal with a gun. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun and ammunition, even if they must manufacture it themselves.

 

Elana: Let me just say, Mr. Adams, that I was not comparing racism and firearms as two separate objects. I was comparing them as ideas for change; a template for a brighter future. When you say, Mr. Adams, “Criminals will always find a way to get a gun and ammunition, even if they must manufacture it themselves.” Do you ever wonder how these criminals have the connections to purchase or even manufacture these firearms in the first place? I am not exaggerating when I say that because of public gun use, criminals’ lives are made a great deal easier! Again, I stand for change; A change that could revolutionize our children’s children’s potentially peaceful society.

 

Round 3: Closings

 

Alex: The entire argument of my opponent has been focused upon crime and criminal use of weapons. Assault rifles can be used for more than this, and they often are. We, the citizens of the United States of America, have the right to bear arms, and the government controlling assault rifles infringes upon that right. Why should we give up our arms if we have done nothing with them that is illegal? We shouldn’t, and never will. As the popular saying goes, “They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.”

Elana: Similarly, my opponent’s entire argument seems to revolve around the idea that my ways are complete nonsense! Stubbornness like his is what truly angers me: an ignorance of changing views by fellow people. I am not accusing any rifle-owners of immorality or bad decisions, I am merely enforcing an idea of change, one that could shape our world into a peaceful and less bloody place. When I speak out against gun control, I stand against a horrible temptation to potential criminals, and dangerous situations in general. If the world wants peace, guns are NOT the place to start.

 

Thank you for reading Elana and Alex’s debate! Please comment below on what your opinions are regarding the subject, and who you think won!

 

-Alex Adams

-Elana Wallach

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Assault Rifle Control ~ Debates!

  1. That was quite the debate! I think that assault rifles should be controlled, but not banned. Superior debating on the part of Alex, way to go! Good job by Elana, too!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s