03-04-2004, 11:55 PM
Since you are so keen on debate I will outline the weakest points of your argument here.
Your method for ruling out use of an assault rifle as a purely offensive weapon is flawed. Part of the reason the second amendment exists is so that the civilians are not unarmed if they should ever decide that injustices of government necessitate a secession. In other words, the drafters of the Bill of Rights wanted to be sure that civilians would be able to declare war on the U.S. government. Remember that this was written at a time when any civilian could conceivably be as well armed as the countryâs military forces. A progression in the complexity and cost of modern weaponry has made it unlikely that a citizen would be able to afford enough weaponry to put him on an even footing with the modern U.S. military. (However a militia could find itself armed well if funded by a rather wealthy individual or corporation) So while it may be impractical, it is still in the spirit of the law that a citizen should be armed well enough to rebel against his government successfully. Changing this would require amending the Constitution. More specifically, it would require the removal of one of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights. This is not likely to happen.
This little bit of reasoning is not only flawed, but undermines your own argument. First off, this is not reasoning it is a proclamation. You âflat out sayâ something which you have no facts to back up. Not only that, but what you are essentially saying is that the level of danger presented by a handgun is no less than that presented by an assault rifle. If this were the case, then you would have no argument for doing away with assault rifles and not doing away with hand guns. You cannot say that an assault rifle is more dangerous than a handgun to innocent bystanders without accepting the fact that it is also more dangerous to its intended target. Even worse, you specifically specify a âsmall handgun.â Docâs story should be enough to teach you that even a larger caliber handgun is more effective in some self defense situations than a smaller (9mm) one.
Another problem with your debating skills is the recognition of the feasibility of the solutions presented. You simply declare the first solution to be impossible without any facts backing it up. In fact you have even identified the wrong solution. The solution is not to make sure that the weapons that the police have are bigger than those of the criminals. The solution is to make sure that the weapons the police have are big enough to defeat the defenses of the criminals. There is a big difference.
Your method for ruling out use of an assault rifle as a purely offensive weapon is flawed. Part of the reason the second amendment exists is so that the civilians are not unarmed if they should ever decide that injustices of government necessitate a secession. In other words, the drafters of the Bill of Rights wanted to be sure that civilians would be able to declare war on the U.S. government. Remember that this was written at a time when any civilian could conceivably be as well armed as the countryâs military forces. A progression in the complexity and cost of modern weaponry has made it unlikely that a citizen would be able to afford enough weaponry to put him on an even footing with the modern U.S. military. (However a militia could find itself armed well if funded by a rather wealthy individual or corporation) So while it may be impractical, it is still in the spirit of the law that a citizen should be armed well enough to rebel against his government successfully. Changing this would require amending the Constitution. More specifically, it would require the removal of one of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights. This is not likely to happen.
Quote:So that leaves self defense. And I will flat out say that in reasonable, realistic situations, an american civilian defending him or herself and family with an assault rifle would be just as effective using a rifle or small handgun.
This little bit of reasoning is not only flawed, but undermines your own argument. First off, this is not reasoning it is a proclamation. You âflat out sayâ something which you have no facts to back up. Not only that, but what you are essentially saying is that the level of danger presented by a handgun is no less than that presented by an assault rifle. If this were the case, then you would have no argument for doing away with assault rifles and not doing away with hand guns. You cannot say that an assault rifle is more dangerous than a handgun to innocent bystanders without accepting the fact that it is also more dangerous to its intended target. Even worse, you specifically specify a âsmall handgun.â Docâs story should be enough to teach you that even a larger caliber handgun is more effective in some self defense situations than a smaller (9mm) one.
Quote:Oh, by the way. Here's how I, as a debater, would analyze this thread:
- problem recognized by all (bad guys better armed than cops)
- 2 solutions suggested: (1) give the cops bigger and better weapons, (2) take the bigger weapons away from the bad guys.
The second solution is more difficult. I readily admit that. However, I would also point out that the first solution is impossible. There will always be a bigger gun, and the bad guys have more money (and will) to spend to have the "biggest" weapon.
Another problem with your debating skills is the recognition of the feasibility of the solutions presented. You simply declare the first solution to be impossible without any facts backing it up. In fact you have even identified the wrong solution. The solution is not to make sure that the weapons that the police have are bigger than those of the criminals. The solution is to make sure that the weapons the police have are big enough to defeat the defenses of the criminals. There is a big difference.