The Instigator
drewrasmussen
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Rich1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gun rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
drewrasmussen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 455 times Debate No: 69735
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

drewrasmussen

Pro

Owning a gun is a right to citizens in America and needs to be allowed. 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. Taking guns from an American is like taking water from a fish. It just doesn't work out. So as a nation we need to stick to who we are and allow guns to the citizens who qualify for owning a firearm.
Rich1

Con

I accept.

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." [1]

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This difference in time and situations makes the second amendment outdated.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. [2]

"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. [3]

[1] http://www.archives.gov...
[2] http://finance.townhall.com...
[3] http://www.businessinsider.com...
Debate Round No. 1
drewrasmussen

Pro

Ok, first of all, the whole point of having this debate is to share your opinion. You share yours and I'll share mine. So don't try to hit me with the "opinion card". And thank you for reinstating my point of the second amendment allowing citizens to bear arms. However, bringing up the murder rate is a good point, but that is an unfixable problem. With gun laws the criminals will be the ones to keep the guns illegally, and the law abiding citizens will be the ones punished. Also, if someone wants to murder someone else and they do not have a gun, what is going to stop them from using a knife. Yes, it is easier to kill a man with a gun, but it is not the gun that kills the person, it is the man/women that pulled the trigger. And that same person that pulled the trigger will just as easily use a knife or another object to kill.
Rich1

Con

Firstly I would like to correct you:
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. [4]

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. [4] [5] [6]

[4] http://www.usnews.com...
[5] http://aeon.co...
[6] http://edition.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
drewrasmussen

Pro

You're arguing the same statement I am by saying that the debate is to prove that I am right and you are wrong. So you can lay off of that and actually say something worth my time or you can keep coming to that. 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. And if you believe that then you need to check yourself and step out into the real world before you get into a bad situation. We as Americans have the right to protect ourselves if it is justified. And the people who we would need protection from are the ones that will keep the guns against the laws. Then what do we do? Let hem steal from us, hurt us, take advantage of us, even kill us. One saying that applies to this topic is that of, "if something isn't broken, don't try to fix it." You can bring up the murder rate all you want or the father of the daughter but that has nothing to do with the right to a man bearing his own gun. The gun didn't make the father decide to kill the boy, he did it himself wether he used a gun or not, it is his fault not the gun he did it with. 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.
Rich1

Con

Firstly I would like to point out that there has been a misunderstanding. Pro"s job is to prove why guns should be legal and Con"s job is to prove why they should not be legal. By proving I mean that we both need to bring up different sources that support our arguments, like I have done. When the debate is finished there will be a voting period. This voting period is made so the winner can be found and the factors we will be judged on, is who the person agreed with BEFORE the debate, who the person agree with AFTER the debate, who had better conduct, who had better spelling and grammar, who made more convincing arguments and who used the most reliable sources, and of cause a reason for the decision.
"
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.

==Conclusion==

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.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by drewrasmussen 1 year ago
drewrasmussen
No @RavenDebater it is not. thats why I'm arguing for it.
Posted by RavenDebater 1 year ago
RavenDebater
Is this not exactly what happens now?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by august55433 1 year ago
august55433
drewrasmussenRich1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
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.