The Instigator
Matthew3.14
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
980730
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gun Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Matthew3.14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,696 times Debate No: 23155
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Matthew3.14

Pro

This is a debate about gun rights. The parameters are to be set for Californian law, society, and customs. My fellow debate resides in California so this would account as common knowlege and assumed conditions for both of us.

Definition set for gun rights: The legal right to posses a gun under proper licensing in California.

First round is acceptance.
980730

Con

Challenge Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
Matthew3.14

Pro

There are 3 arguments that justify my argument:

Reason 1: Constitution 2nd Amendment shows current standing of gun rights. As the wisdom of founding fathers has created a complete American nation, the wisdom of our Founding fathers in creating these amendments is proven, thus being logic behind decision of the provisioned rights.

Reason 2: By allowing guns to be owned under lawful measures, the safety of people is secured because guns are used for peace-making measures such as protecting oneself.

Reason 3: Legally holding guns attributes to history of one where no past illegal acts were committed that prohibiting firearm possession for a person over 18. This legal "trust" shows that gun rights are carefully decided for wise and good use.
980730

Con

Yes, but as you stated, only wise people should own guns, correct? Let's just say someone pretended to be a wise person, got a gun under correct licensing and just shot someone, but then in court, he states that he felt threatened, and needed to protect his/herself. If the court cannot prove that he had the gun illeagly nor had not been threatened, he would just get off the hook. We really don't want a crazed gunman on the loose. You may be able to keep a small caliber pistol in your garage, but no, you shouldn't be alllowed to keep a rifle or a shotgun in your garage. And how would one know if it was used for peacemaking? How can we trust that person if we were not there? What if he was lying? We don't know this.
Debate Round No. 2
Matthew3.14

Pro

I thank Con for debating with me. However, his argument has many flaws:

Rebuttal 1: My opponent stated the case of a crazed man with a gun. However, Con has failed to recognize my point that anyone owning a gun must be legally licensced (Support 3). Therefore, the absurd point that a crazed man owns a gun (legally) is wrong.

Rebuttal 2: Con stated having a shotgun/rifle as plausible. However, California law gives strict requirements for gun owners such as restricting felons from owning rifles.

Support: The rebuttals highlight a support for my reasons in that the laws require gun owners to have a clean history (Reason 3) and use guns wisely such as to defend oneself.

Sources:
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
980730

Con

Yes I did state a crazed man with a gun, however, I did state before that he got the right licensing, so your point is invalid. Also, as a rebuttle to your second rebuttle, you stated that felons from owning a rifle, but I stated that a normal countryside person from having a rife/shotgun. Yes, and also, as a rubuttle to your support, you stated that the person must have a clean history. Say this man had a clean history but one day, he decided to kill someone. He already did, so you cannot say he did not have the right documents, when in fact, that was a first offence, and he did have a clean history. Lastly, all gunmen have to start from a clean history up until they get the proper document, then they start shooting people.
Debate Round No. 3
Matthew3.14

Pro

As a summary, I would like to take note of the following:

Con centered his entire argument upon the hypothetical situation of a normal man just happening to turn crazy on an arbitrary day and start shooting people.

1. My opponent failed to make valid connection between the highly unlikely case of the crazy man to the gun rights debate, thus making the situation be almost of no relation to the debate.

2. Con always stated his core support as a "say say" condition and did not state any real life example as to this condition thus regarding it as a "mythical" situation in this debate.

3. Almost all of Pro's (my) points were disregarded by Con thus conceding to each and every one of my supports.

Based on everything, vote Pro!
980730

Con

I lose, MOOOOOO. Vote me, I have mad cow disease.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Matthew3.14980730Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: spammer
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Matthew3.14980730Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff