Debate Rounds (3)
Firstly I would like to point out that Pro fails to prove his argument. He only uses personal opinions.
"The 2nd amendment states that we as Americans are rightful to bare arms. Our country works on what our forefathers built our nation with, and guns are a right to the citizens of America."
The second amendment says: "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." 
The second amendment was passed along with 9 other amendments which are called the Bill Of Rights. It was ratified along with the nine other amendments on December 17, 1791.
The situation in 1791 was very different than the situation is today. The second amendment was made to ensure the safety of a free state. Back then they had no real powers to protect the individual"s rights so therefore it was up to the individual to protect it. Now we have so many chances to get help, which means that no-one is left alone. The Government makes sure that our individual rights are safe. Our individual rights are protected by the police and the military.
This difference in time and situations makes the second amendment outdated. We do not need the same protection because we have so many other possibilities then having a gun in the house. 
"Taking guns from an American is like taking water from a fish."
Pro state that the gun law in is a basic need for survival for an American, like water is for a fish. Pro fails to add any proof that makes his statement valid.
Guns are not a basic need for survival in America. Guns are the main murder weapon in America. The percentage of murders that has been committed with a gun is 68% of all the murderers in America. 
The point of this debate is to prove why your statements are better than mine and to convince me and all others that look at this debate that you are right and I am wrong. This means that you need to bring up more than just personal opinions.
Pro claims that: "bringing up the murder rate is a good point, but that is an unfixable problem."
The murder rate is not an unfixable problem because when the murder rate is calculated, it contains all the murders with guns, including mass shootings, school shootings and even a father that killed his daughter"s lover just because he found them in bed together. 
Let us talk about the school shootings first. A school shooting requires a gun and without a gun, there would be no school shooting.
Pro states: "if someone wants to murder someone else and they do not have a gun, what is going to stop them from using a knife"
If someone wanted to make a school "shooting" with a knife then it would be so much more difficult because he is not that dangerous as if he had a gun. If he went into a class room with a knife, then he would not stand a chance against a whole class on, let us say 20 students and 1 teacher.
Now let us talk about the father.
If the father did not have a gun then he would not be able to shoot his daughter"s lover but he would be able to beat him or even go for a knife in the kitchen, but it would not be the same, because the lack of an easy firearm takes away the temptation, the temptation was there because he saw the guy reaching for something. If the father knew that guns were not that common, then he would maybe not have thought that it was something dangerous. AKA he would not have any right to shoot and kill the poor guy.   
Secondly I would like to point out that Pro fails to prove any of his arguments which make them invalid e.g. "Along with wasting time by saying that,"without guns, murder would be fixable." That is not true. The world is a crazy place filled with crazy people, and not possessing a gun is not going to stop a killer from killing."
I would like to draw attention to my previous arguments and links.
Pro makes a lot of arguments but fails to support them with any valid expert opinions. Pro fails to prove my arguments wrong; he just uses personal opinions and fails to support them. Pro even claims that: "You try to sound all sophisticated by using websites, and "facts" but in the end this particular debate is over my opinion and yours. And mine just happens to be the right one. Hope you can learn little from this and maybe change your views on having gun laws."
In the end, I would just like to point out that in a debate, you need to bring up facts and expert opinions to support your arguments, or else there would be no chance for any of us, to prove why our arguments is better than the opponent"s arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by august55433 2 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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Im sorry, but i am very passionate that every american has the right to bear arms, and that should not be infringed. There are more killings in gun free zones, then there are in gun zones.
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.