The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Gun rights for common people -should be allowed or not .

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,542 times Debate No: 41186
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




i think gun rights should not be given to all .this will enhance the terror in the society and can lead to more people being dead. yeas its true just because you have one you wont use one but still who can deny the possibility .Also giving guns to people without proper authorization is not justified .


First; my apologies for my crassness in the comment section. I wasn't expecting a reply.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


self defense well one keeps guns because the other has one . We all know of how people with guns have entered public places,schools,hospitals etc and presses the trigger till all bullets were over.Nineteen people died in four mass killings over four days, the latest in a spate of tragedies showcasing shockingly familiar patterns of violence. Innocent kids were killed in per-school by a psychopath all this has happened due to ease in obtaining guns .guns should be given only to the military and police for border peace and moral peace of the country and people.


There's a problem with your fundamentals when you blame an inanimate object for the actions of an animate being. You asserted that people have guns because other people have guns, but the solution to that problem involves eliminating all guns everywhere. That is an infeasible and impossible task.

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 [1]. 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.
Debate Round No. 2


In December 2012, a 20-year-old man wearing combat gear and armed with pistols and a semi-automatic rifle forced his way into a school in Newtown, and killed 26 people, including 20 elementary school students [source: Barron]. That event followed two other mass killings in 2012 -- a July attack on an Aurora, theater in which a gunman slaughtered 12 people and wounded 58 more, and an August assault on a Sikh temple in Milwaukee in which six worshipers were shot to death and there others wounded [source: Krouse]. A January 2013 Associated Press poll found that 58 percent of Americans wanted stricter gun control laws, and 55 percent wanted a ban on so-called assault weapons -- rapid-firing semi-automatic rifles.What about right to live?


You dodged my point that most people who own guns are good people, and they shouldn't have their right to own one removed. Whether or not it should be controlled is another question, though one that I'd probably fall more towards your side on. An outright ban on guns for everyone is a foolish (and impossible) idea, since criminals can acquire weapons by non-legal means whereas law-abiding citizens, by definition, can't. That shifts the balance of power and would drive up crime. Also, how many people want something doesn't make them right. That's called an argumentum ad populum and is a logical fallacy.

Thanks for the debate.

Source for previous statistic:
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
All those mass shootings were in gun free zones. Either the perpetrator could not read or laws mean nothing to him.Banning gun free zones would not give any of these crazies a safe place to do their evil act. Almost all of these freaks killed themselves when confronted with a gun.The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And in none of those shootings were the police the first responders.The victims were the first responders. If that principle at sandyhook had a 357 instead of a pencil, there is a good chance the outcome would have been very different.
Posted by Shreedeep 2 years ago
go ahead i made the change
Posted by Rekthor 2 years ago
If you had the stones to allow anyone to debate you, I would.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Numidious 2 years 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
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.