The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Gun rights; for, against, or compromise in between

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,488 times Debate No: 82661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". On this note, what is your opinion on it. Please provide either facts, stats, or logic, or all of the above.


I accept. Arguments in the next round.

Note: Pro said give ideas so he cannot win.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm am for gun rights. All law abiding citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. There have at least 1million cases per year where guns have been used to defend oneself.


I thank Pro.


Okay, Pro cannot win because he states a question and tells me my opinion.


Contention 1: Guns are illegal

In many countries guns are illegal. This is because they can kill people. Guns are illegal in many different countries and we should not follow illegal things, or else there was a punishment. This is the first reason why gun rights are bad.

Contention 2: Guns are dangerous.

Almost all murders are from guns and knives. However, knives are used for everyday tools, when guns are not.

Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you.
Opponent's first point
I would like to ask why some counties make firearms illegal? Countries like China and North Korea ban all firearms from private use. Nazi Germany also banned firearms from the Jews. However I live in a country that allows firearm ownership so my opponent's argument does not apply to me. That being said if a country bans firearms then until the law changes, those who cannot speak out against it will have to follow the law and not say anything

Opponent's second point
Firearms are not dangerous. In order to make something dangerous it has to inflict injury while in normal use. In other words it has to be by accident. Why knives are tools but firearms aren't? If by your definition of "dangerous" that means knives also are dangerous, also matches. Firearms have been used for other things besides killing like target practice. Firearms don't kill people, people kill people.



Sorry for not going in depth from the second round.


1. My opponent gives no evidence.

s://; alt="gun myth 4" width="577" height="130" />

D8LrtmG.png (588×456)

My first picture shows you that guns are 73 percent of not defense and 8 percent of defense.

There is a large amount of research that guns were not for safety.

As Politico explained, “[d]espite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States.”

This means that, guns are not for safety.

Okay, now comes into my defense.

Even though, your country uses guns, still guns are not allowed worldwide because they can harm people, and the government's job is to take care of citizens meaning that they banned guns. The guns are still simply dangerous world wide.

Second of all, he states that the guns are not harmful. However the problem is that these people cannot control themselves. There is no real problem if they won't shoot guns, but some bad people just do. As Pro is saying, he think there is no fights and also no wars.

Now comes my arguments

1. My first argument is that guns are fearful.

If you see a gun, do you think you will be confident? People will feel torture. They will run away. Some people hold guns because of torture as if the ISIS. These people should be banned from having guns because they use them to have and also make torture.

Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Maccabee 1 year ago
Sorry about that. Is there anyway to change to just "for it or against it"?
Posted by jzonda415 1 year ago
This isn't a poll. This is a debate you have opened up, and, if one accepts it, you will probably lose.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to make assertions instead of arguments. Asserting that there are more than 1 million cases per year is no good unless you explain its significance and more importantly source this claim. It bares no impact upon the resolution unless it is proven to be a fact via sourcing. Con sourced all his statistics and claims and these were left insufficiently addressed. The only addressing to these claims that Pro made were un-sourced claims that required sourcing in order for them to bare weight upon the resolution. Naming specific elements regarding countries as a rebuttal without sourcing means that I cannot validate the credibility of these arguments. Con sourced what requires sources in his arguments and his rebuttal and therefore they stand and Pro's don't.