The Instigator
DanTheLawyer
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
snicker_911
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

All should have there right to own a gun

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,099 times Debate No: 4161
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (15)

 

DanTheLawyer

Pro

Well all have the right to self defense and a gun is protection if you know how to use it in the right way.
snicker_911

Con

I don't think that's such a good idea. Did you miss the Virginia Tech shooting? If everyone had the right to own guns, which we do, there's no stopping anyone from robbing the bank and shooting someone or a teenager's suicidal attempt or school shootings, etc.
Debate Round No. 1
DanTheLawyer

Pro

Well most people already do have guns and there is no stopping it. If the law but a band on all guns except for law enforcers, then the crime rate may go up and i don't think the hunters and others would be happy about giving up there guns. That may lead to a riot ,also there will always be suicide by gun, or murder, or shootings in schools because they will never get rid of all guns that are held by the public.
snicker_911

Con

The purpose of the gun is to kill or defend. The police should have it to protect the citizens. I think hunters should have some kind of protective license. Not something like, oh sign this, here you go. just to secure the safety of the people because what if a hunter accidently mistakes a person for a deer or something? who knows? it could happen. Like alcohol banning, it didn't work and it put up a huge riot, but I think that it could possible go either way with gun ownership, I mean, most people don't own guns anyway nor do many want to, and alcoholic drinks a little different because people drink it for pleasure. you can't really get pleasure with shooting other ppl unless you're psycho. but, i think whoever is president should try to ban gun ownership on some level and see how that goes down.
Debate Round No. 2
DanTheLawyer

Pro

Well you say that "what if some hunter mistakes someone for a deer". Well they have hunting areas where you can only hunt and your suppose to have orange on. A gun is used to protect us from terrorists and helps fight in war. I know they shouldn't just sign a sheet of paper and say here you go, but that is why they have courses(training). I think most people should be required to take a gun safety course and be trained how to shoot one ,so if they wanted to own a gun then, they can. If they don't, that is fine. That doesn't mean they should, but a ban on guns. I like to shoot and yes i am a hunter. I like to shoot at targets and I go hunting. I eat what I kill because it isn't right to hunt for i sport and just leave the thing there for nothing. So if I didn't have a right to own a gun, then it would be harder to supply food, because not all people can supply themselves food with just money. If the president did put a ban on guns ,then the under cover cops could be arrested for owning a gun in there vehicles and if the president didn't let the police own a gun, then how would they stop raps, murders, and theft, because sometimes police are out numbered or they are not strong enough to restrain criminal's. Some do have tsars but how far can a tsar go when you try and apprehend someone? They are dangerous, but so are planes, cars, and boats. We do need them, but we also need guns for protection.
snicker_911

Con

If we didn't have war, we wouldn't need guns and protection from terrorists...so you are suggesting everyone carries around guns just in case a terrorist breaks into a random house and kills everyone in it? there are alot of safety measures in airports and security that keep us safe from terrorists. guns are unneeded for civilians. i think police, security/body guards and obviously soldiers ONLY should be allowed to carry them. again, if we didn't have war... :/ I don't think they should be permanantely banned--again it might provoke more ppl to illegally get guns...but i think we should try and see what happens.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
libertarian- oh, i guess we all have to be geniuses to debate. great!-that takes out about...98% of the world population... xD besides, no one asked for proof my statistics are true, so I didn't bother. :P

BE A PACIFIST! :D
Posted by DanTheLawyer 8 years ago
DanTheLawyer
Thank you leethal, I am glad to hear that. My school does have a debate team and I think a class, but I am doing that next year. I do understand you like to say who and who you vote for and thats understandable, but when I vote ,then I don't really say who i vote for, because I really think it is unnecessary unless i am to correct someone which i hardly ever do , because most things on here are peoples opinions and what does that give me the right to criticise. I have thoughts on their opinions which I may like or not, but I usaully don't correct people.
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
Danthelawyer, you've got my respect, mate. You are the first person I've seen on this site who is humble enough to accept criticism with anything other than scorn. Well done dude. I'm in the same boat too man; I've never debated in my life, my school never had a debate team or any of that crud, and I don't know what ad hominem means, but I love to argue my opinions.

Don't take what I said below as non-constructive criticism; I merely like to say why I voted each time I vote, and I don't like to lie.
Posted by DanTheLawyer 8 years ago
DanTheLawyer
For all who say i am a horrible debater. Well i am, but that is because i am new to Debate, but i love to argue so thats why i am on the site to learn more on how to debate.
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
I voted PRO because both were horrible debaters, but CON did not respond to the point that you will never get rid of all guns.
Posted by DanTheLawyer 8 years ago
DanTheLawyer
I know may arguements are weak. I perfer to use my common sense and knowledge to win my debates. I should start using facts, and links more though.
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
Voted CON because both arguments were as weak as piss and I hate guns.
Posted by DanTheLawyer 8 years ago
DanTheLawyer
You said "If we didn't have war".Well there will always be war, because someone will want to start things, so they will need guns and also there are only so many police to protect you, but a gun protects someone who does not have assistance from a law enforcer so say if we was to temporarily ban guns. Then when someone is trying to murder you, then what do you have a knife. Just because you ban guns, doesn't mean murders are going to stop killings with the guns.
Posted by DanTheLawyer 8 years ago
DanTheLawyer
http://wiki.answers.com...
guns was used for war, but not for public areas
Posted by DanTheLawyer 8 years ago
DanTheLawyer
It would be used for self-defense, but it doesn't have to kill someone if it is a weak gun or it depends where one is shot. The first gun was build to fight in a war for protection which did lead to killing or for entertainment, but was eventually became known as a killing weapon because of war.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PsyPhiGuy 6 years ago
PsyPhiGuy
DanTheLawyersnicker_911Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
DanTheLawyersnicker_911Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by jigsaw 8 years ago
jigsaw
DanTheLawyersnicker_911Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
DanTheLawyersnicker_911Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
DanTheLawyersnicker_911Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Hamlicar_B_Rules 8 years ago
Hamlicar_B_Rules
DanTheLawyersnicker_911Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
DanTheLawyersnicker_911Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vodyanoi 8 years ago
Vodyanoi
DanTheLawyersnicker_911Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
DanTheLawyersnicker_911Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
DanTheLawyersnicker_911Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30