Gun rights for common people -should be allowed or not .
Debate Rounds (3)
I can't offer a stark, 180 degree standpoint, but I can offer an alternative view. Gun rights are a useful tool to have, and while it should be scrutinized and regulated, it shouldn't be restricted to the common man. The right to self-defence endangers nobody, and most who buy guns understand that they while they do have the right to have them, they don't have the right to use them irresponsibly. Keeping a weapon in your house for home defence (assuming it is properly stored and you know how to use it) is a perfectly valid excuse, especially if you live in high-crime area. People have the right to defend themselves.
Also, you're mischaracterizing gun owners. You said that people with guns, and not sociopaths with guns, have shot people. Saying that people with guns are prone to shooting people is an error, since there are about 150 million americans who now own at least one gun . Most people who own a gun are not going to commit mass shootings. Banning guns, not gun control, is impossible and prevents people from exercising their constitution-given rights.
Thanks for the debate.
Source for previous statistic: http://www.gallup.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Numidious 3 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:||3||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This is a brief, but interesting debate. At first glance I thought pro's arguments would be stronger merely by merit of clarity and grammar. However, con put forward some strong points that are really common knowledge and that pro did not really refute. Pro said that con "dodged" his point that good people own guns, but con's mention of mass shootings evidently negates this. Neither side really persuaded me one way or the other, to be honest, and it was nice that pro sourced his statistics so he also gets a point there, but I found that con had stronger arguments. Good debate all round, though.
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.