Right To Bear Arms Argumentative Case

Words: 718
Pages: 3

Negative Case

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
It is because I agree with Dalai lama that I negate todays resolution

Resolved: Government limits on the individual's right to bear arms in the United States is justified.

For clarification of today's round I offer the following definitions:

1. Government-Exercise of authority in a political unit

2. Limits-A confining or a restricting object, agent

3. Individual-Existing as a distinct entity; separate

4. Right to bear arms-Rule that allows individuals to own firearms.

5. Justified-To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid

The overriding value for this round will be Quality of life. Quality of life acts as a standard for our daily lives. Quality of life plays a huge role in this round because although life is important quality of life is a pre-requisite to life itself. By voting Neg we achieve this.

I will prove my case through the criterion of Deontology. Deontology is the ideology that the means outweigh the outcome. This is important to this debate because when individuals’ rights are stripped, the means are
…show more content…
They go on to say effective gun control may entail significant unintended consequences. The government is intrusive enough and private transfers would do nothing but jeopardize our civil liberties. Also, according to John C. Moorhouse and Brent Warner there is no evidence that gun control affects violent crime. It may even increase it. The failure to find a negative relationship between gun control and crime rates is because it is ineffective and so is the system. Bridge: this proves that if we instate stricter laws nothing would happen leading to a waste of U.S. money that could go to more important organizations. Backing: with an ineffective system, we increase gun/crime deaths and ruin America’s good