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

Gun rights in the US

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,674 times Debate No: 21215
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




First round is acceptance.


That people have a right to weapons, and it should be allowed, it has it's benefits.

No gun rights:

There is no right to guns and banning guns woudl reduce crime.

I argue there is a right in the US to a firearm, and more guns can have it's benefits. My opponent argues the opposite.


I agree to the terms and i await my opponents opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1


C1: The US constitution

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms." [1]

The second amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [2]

One common argument against guns is the militia statement, well this disproves that statement:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

The militia is the people! Also the second part even words it out: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" [3]

the courts:

"The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states." [4]

C2: more guns less crime

"Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI." [5]

"The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent." [6]

Due to the fact I am lazy, I will make the opening round short and sweet. [1] [2]
Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights [3] [4] [5] [6]


I will start by listing multiple incidents of where guns cost many life's and frankly national security at large was penetrated.


.I First I reference Columbine, injuring 24 people and 15 killed. These two teenagers 17 and 18 years old got a hold of guns and caused much damage, I think the concept of everyone having relatively free use of a gun is frankly stupid in the 21st century.

.II Then there is the Longhorn Tower Shooting, in my hometown in fact. In 1966 a massacre took place perpetrated by a ruthless killer who again, had no monitoring on his use of guns.


I have shown that my opponent's argument is an outdated one indeed.. It has been debunked since his main ground was Militia activity and a document written in September 17, 1787. A very outdated document in a time where there was a constant threat of Native American attacks and war, I don't think that applies in this age.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent shows reasons to possibly restrict guns, but failed to prove there is no right to guns. I have proven the right to guns via second amendment, he has offered no counter evidence. So, there can be downfalls to guns (in his mind) but if the right to guns is there then well we still ought to own them.


R1: Incidence of massacre

I. Columbine. My opponent claims that if we ban guns these incidents will stop. This is false, as England also has this problem:

“In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain’s major cities, despite new laws [Firearms Act of 1997] banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual.” [1]

So even banning guns has no effect on the number of shootings.

“the use of firearms in crime was very much less before 1920 when Britain had no controls of any sort.” [1]

When there was no gun control there was little gun problems. Furthermore, gun control would not have stopped the Columbine shootings. [2] The 2 kids where 18 years of age. [3] The two boys broke many gun law prior and during the event. [4] It is now logical to say as they already broke gun laws, new gun laws would have no effect the kids would still break them anyway.

So in my opinion you ban guns, they will break the laws and get them through the black market.

"Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck reports that guns are used defensively about one million times per year. Ninety-eight percent of those times, not a single shot is fired" [5]

From a liberal website:

"Guns were used in 12,632 homicides in 2007" [6]

Now, as guns are used in self defense and much of the time no shot is fired then you can say guns prevent more violence then they cause.

II. As I have stated, we have laws against murder yet people will still do it. More of the gun laws will not prevent anything. You say guns murder, well true but guns are used in defense and actually prevent violence then not. (see my last argument) So really, guns prevent murder. Firearms are used 80 times more often to protect your life or another life then to murder. [7]

So, do guns kill? Not really, it is inanimate, only the person can kill. But, it is used as a tool for murder less often then used as a tool for saving lives. In Vermont you can carry a gun with no license, and they have one of the lowest crime rates in the US, [8] They won the safest state award 3 times. [8]

~Conclusion to the rebuttals~

Guns save more lives then are ended. Also my opponent says the constitution is out dated, well answer this:

Guns save lives, and it is an issue that directly relates to laws and circumstances today, how can something that relates to modern culture be out dated? The answer is it cannot, here is a definite right to guns.

"In communities that do not have police departments—where one or two sheriffs deputies have to cover 1,000 square miles—you dial 9-1-1 and wait, often times, for two or three hours. Things have often turned out okay because there has been a handgun in most glove boxes and very few pickup trucks (not to mention homes) without a loaded rifle or shotgun. People knew that, and the crime rate was very low.

Please don’t tell me that the Second Amendment is out of date. " [9]

Also, a funny picture refuting his arguments on the masacres (kinda sad too):

I posd link as if i do that then I lower the chance of me getting an internal error.

Basically gun rights are justified, save mor elives then they take away, and is not outdated. VOTE PRO.

sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
National Safety Council, gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois. [7]
Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," [8] [9]


I cite multiple incidents and studies proving how guns can harm the average person and in fact do not save lives but instead take more of them.

.I "Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were significant correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates."

Sources for study:

.II My opponent argues how making guns illegal will just increase the amount of gun use. How is that possible? If you make something illegal it forces somebody to have to smuggle it into the country. Much like drugs, the price of a gun will be much much more since you have to take into account your paying a whole new party in the system of you receiving your product.

.III Almost every school or public institute in the US makes guns illegal to have on the property. That doesn't mean it is well enforced, and if the government makes it illegal to own guns it makes it even more harder to get guns and they become more expensive so the same argument as .II applies here as well, since security guards on school grounds aren't well armed enough.

.IV Militia's are no longer neccasary, instead of using our money on providing gun licences, gun checks etc. etc. that money could be used to provide officers and the army more weaponry. Then guns being illegal the amount of gun crime would go down vastly. Also statistics show that most household guns (if the house is robbed) end up being used for crime.

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
and pol pot
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 6 years ago
Stalin, Mao, and the Kamyr Rouge
Posted by chainmachine 6 years ago
HAHA 200,000,000 people!! Which Communist leader, the boogey man!! lol
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 6 years ago
Communist leader killed 200,000,000 people it's not ignorant at all. :P
Posted by chainmachine 6 years ago
Lol i do have to admit your comment is funny, but still ignorant.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 6 years ago
haha did a commie just really bring up the word massacre?? XD
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
lol I had stats, you just say that's impossible. It's called I keep my gun, and the law abiding people give them away!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G- Con made some capitalization mistakes. Args- Con never responded to the deterrence argument until it was too late.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Better sources.