The Government should outlaw guns.

My second debate...my first of which I was thrashed by the commentors...so here goes.

The U.S. government should not even consider trying to take guns away from the American people. Reason why I believe this is because it's more than likely going to end up like the Prohibition attempt--doing more harm than good.

If the gov't were to take away our guns to try to "limit violence and crime ratings," the opposite effect will take place. There will be riots and guns being bought and sold below the gov't's nose.

That being said, go for it Pro...

My opponent was very unclear with regards to the meaning of the outlawing of guns. Very few if any nations outlaw guns altogether. Some nations, such as Japan, outlaw guns for all purposes except for hunting, which is heavily regulated. I'll assume this is what my opponent means. The purchase of guns for non-hunting purposes (handguns, rifles used for protection).

"The U.S. government should not even consider trying to take guns away from the American people. Reason why I believe this is because it's more than likely going to end up like the Prohibition attempt--doing more harm than good."

>> This is simply a hypothesis by my opponent. There's no fact or empirical evidence here.

"If the gov't were to take away our guns to try to "limit violence and crime ratings," the opposite effect will take place. There will be riots and guns being bought and sold below the gov't's nose."

>> This is the same thing, except it includes hyperbole.

My opponent has failed to prove how the outlaw of guns for non-hunting purposes would result in more crime, or heavy black market sales.

A quick example to refute this point would be Japan. Non-hunting gun ownership is outlawed. In addition, police have the right to search for guns, and monitor any related actions/items. The crime rate in that nation is much lower than in the US (as of 1998 US per 100K murders was 6.32, Japan per 100K murders was 0.58.

Even if you do assume greater black market purchases of guns, and subsequent use of those weapons, it is very possible that the immediate reduction in crime following the ban would be much greater than the subsequent increase in crime following an establishment of a black market for these weapons. Unless my opponent can prove this is not the case, her stance will remain unsupported.

It is simply unconstitutional for the U.S. government to outlaw any use of guns. Like, if they TOOK AWAY OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Not just for hunting, but even for self-defense.

If the gov't took away all guns altogether (military purposes excluded), then the people will throw a fit, basically. Because it is Unconstitutional.

My opponent chose to jump to a totally different argument. This is one of the problems of failing to be clear in the opening statement. Very well.

1) The second amendment is an amendment to the constitution. It can be repealed, through a two-thirds majority vote in the US House and US Senate, followed by ratification in three-fourths of the state legislatures. If the government were to outlaw the usage of guns for non-hunting purposes, or any purposes, they would simply have to go through the amendment process and create a 28th amendment repealing the 'bear arms' portion of the 2nd amendment. This would be legal and 'constitutional'.

2) There is still a lot of controversy surrounding exactly how unconstitutional the banning of handguns would be (District of Columbia v. Heller being one example). So we could argue constitutionality if my opponent so desires, but considering the number of legal cases over time relating to this issue, it would probably require a lot more than one or two arguments on debate.com. In addition, I doubt that anyone on debate.com (including myself) is an expert on constitutional law. So this is a relatively infeasible stance.

3) People will 'throw fits' whenever most laws are passed. How many people? What types of people? Is there any long term value lost as a result of these 'fits'? And is it what's best for society?

My opponent chose to not shut up about my arguments.

The topic of my debate has always been the same; losing our rights to carry guns will result in catastrophe. As said before, the nation will probably react the same way it did when the government took away alcohol during Prohibition. They will get upset when someone takes away any right to do anything, including carrying guns.

You haven't really argued why guns SHOULD be outlawed...shouldn't that be the position of my opponent?

Considering that my opponent was unclear from with regards to exactly what 'outlaw' means, I am not sure what my stance should be.
Does outlaw refer to ownership by citizens?
By usage of any and all types?
Does it mean the police and military cannot use them?
Does it mean we choose to enter conflict with all nations who do use guns?
What does it mean?

Considering that my opponent began this debate, I am simply refuting her implied position that the government should not control the usage of guns. By doing so, I simply create a position for myself that it is possible to control the usage of guns without widespread damage to society, and without conflict with the constitution.

In addition, if my opponent wanted to find an argument as to why guns should be outlawed, she had an implied version in my first argument.

"A quick example to refute this point would be Japan. Non-hunting gun ownership is outlawed. In addition, police have the right to search for guns, and monitor any related actions/items. The crime rate in that nation is much lower than in the US (as of 1998 US per 100K murders was 6.32, Japan per 100K murders was 0.58.

Even if you do assume greater black market purchases of guns, and subsequent use of those weapons, it is very possible that the immediate reduction in crime following the ban would be much greater than the subsequent increase in crime following an establishment of a black market for these weapons."

There was no substance in my opponent's argument. It was completely based on fear-mongering along with a weak attempt at arguing constitutionality.

Vote Pro.