args

Resolved- All legally and clinically sane citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Firstly, I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate. My opponent has provided a very strong argument. I would like to reiterate the following 1) Misery is not quantifiable by numbers or words. The mere fact that there is "gun violence" and "death by firearms" is proof that guns do bring misery to the human race. I find it surprising that my opponent has stated that "why we should believe violence and misery in the US is associated in any degree to the right to keep and bear arms" and also stated that "I don't see the connection between "misery" in the US or any other country and "the right to keep and bear arms". I will once again reiterate that gun violence and death by firearms do result in misery and argue that the statistics on child deaths is proof of such misery. 2) The right to bear arms is not a law and can only be considered a law when trying to claim it as a "birthright". The right to bear arms is only a right, regardless of how my opponent would like to argue the matter. My opponent tries to argue that "the right to bear arms is a basic human right" well I would have to rebut that argument by stating that the right to bear arms was not included in the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' and the United States was at the time of signing the strongest power in the world. 3) The right to bear arms is a law that is open to the consensus of the people. At the moment that consensus says that the right should remain in the United States of America. In other countries the consensus is towards creating an environment that is free of arms. It is not unchangeable and nor should it be seen as such. 4) The Orange Revolution was raised as an example of how peaceful civil disobedience can shape governments. If people believe that their government may turn tyrannical and still feel the need to harbor weapons then that is their choice and they can chose to bear arms regardless of whether it is legal or illegal. I would argue that people need to voice their opinion early on and hopefully not get to the stage where they are having armed conflicts with their government (especially in the United States). 5) Restricting arms to the sane is a good idea in theory however in practice there are a multitude of problems. The Virginia Tech Massacre is one such example and is the deadliest single shooting rampage in US history (1). Also the number of people taking their lives is evidence that people that are sane at purchase are experiencing periods of instability. I will finish off by arguing that my opponent did raise a lot of good points in this debate, however I would like people to consider the following. Would there be a need for firearms beyond policing and military use if no other civilians had weapons; if governments were completely transparent; and people pursued a course of civil disobedience every time their rights were undemocratically eroded. I would ask people to consider my points before voting. (1)http://www.washingtonpost.com...