Citizens should be allowed to own guns.
Debate Rounds (3)
"Citizens should be allowed to own guns. I am for the right to own firearms. The con of this debate must prove why we should not own firearms."
The instigator has the burden of proof. You are making the claim that "Citizens should be allowed to own guns." Using this logic, I can claim that I am petting my pet Pikachu, and ask you to disprove it. As you are making the claim, you must make the argument as to why we SHOULD have the right to bear arms.
I will use logic to reason with you. First I would like to point out the fact the guns can protect Innocent people for being killed as we see in this case here. http://www.wsbtv.com...
Also I would like to point out the fact that guns don't kill people. People kill people. Someone could kill me with a kitchen knife. Are we going to band kitchen knives? NO. Someone could kill me with a baseball bat. Are we going to band baseball bats? No. How are you going to prevent someone from killing me with their fist? Are you going to chop off their arms? No. I would also like to suggest a resolution to the crime. I believe that if America becomes hard on crime criminals will wake up and stop committing all the crime they are now. For example any rape or murder crime should be charged with the death penalty. I will save my best argument for last. Now I would like to here the side of con.
The V-tech Massacre ended up killing 32 people, wounding many others. The shooter legally purchase the gun for the purpose of killing other people, and engage in a criminal act. This tragedy was caused by how simple it is for citizens to own a gun. This situation could have been avoided if the Seung-Hui Cho could not purchase a weapon. This would work for the other 2 criminals you listed in your website, the law makes it legal and very easy for people to buy guns for the purpose of killing others... I agree that owning a gun is a useful means of defense, but just as the case in V-tech and the case you listed from the site above, people who usually own guns are people, who want to kill others. People who would like to own guns for self-defense are comparably less than people who buy guns to kill other.
"Also I would like to point out the fact that guns don't kill people. People kill people. Someone could kill me with a kitchen knife. Are we going to band kitchen knives? NO. Someone could kill me with a baseball bat. Are we going to band baseball bats? No. How are you going to prevent someone from killing me with their fist? Are you going to chop off their arms? No."
I agree, but let's look at the facts. The purpose of a kitchen knife, baseball bat, fists, are not to kill people. Not to mention, they are considerably less dangerous than a gun. A gun is a very dangerous weapon. Do you think the college kids would have been scared of the home invaders if the home invaders had kitchen knifes? Baseball bats? Fists? No. A gun is a weapon with the purpose to wound, harm, threaten, and kill. Sure people kill people, but what makes it possible, and ever easier? Guns.
"I would also like to suggest a resolution to the crime. I believe that if America becomes hard on crime criminals will wake up and stop committing all the crime they are now. For example any rape or murder crime should be charged with the death penalty. I will save my best argument for last. Now I would like to here the side of con."
This is completely a different issue. We are not debating harsher punishments or the death penalty. We are debating Gun Rights.
Now, I would like to pose some arguments.
C1: The Purpose of a Gun
Guns while arguably can be used for self-defense and amusement, can also be used for crimes. If you want to have fun hunting, the government can issue you a license for that purpose, but a random citizen, who wants to buy a Glock for the purpose of amusement? It is not a legitimate reason. Self-defense can be done through other methods, and as you cannot tell if someone is buying guns for the purpose of defense or the purpose to murder, we cannot risk the chance that a gun is purchased to preform a murder. Other countries like Japan, have laws prohibiting guns, and face much less controversy and crime regarding guns.
My opponent's resolution is "Citizens should be allowed to own guns." Being a citizen does not mean you are qualified to bear arms. The V-tech massacre is the perfect example, the transaction was perfectly legal, but the owner was mentally unstable and ended up killing 32 people, and himself, after wounding many many more.
C:3 The 2nd Amendment
The right to bear arms was granted by the government on December 15, 1791. "the right to bear arm" can be construed as "Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the phrase To bear arms as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." It can be construed that the 2nd amendment wasn't put in place for self-defense, but to serve the country. Many consider the 2nd amendment as a means to rebel against the country, but our government is a republic, which promotes democracy. The power lies with the people, who elect their leaders. This may have been different as in 1791, America wasn't as stable as America is today. The 2nd Amendment should be amended.
Acts2-38 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whatledge 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.