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

Individuals should have the right to own a gun in the United States.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 349 times Debate No: 82894
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




For this debate, both me and my opponent shall argue if everyone in the United States should have the right to own a gun. I, Pro, shall argue that people deserve a right to own a gun; while my opponent will argue the opposite.

  • No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game.
  • No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other.
  • No Trolls please!
  • If you use a source, post its link in a "Source Category".

Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rules


Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section).
Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Con can Rebuttal this round if they choose.
Round 3: Both sides Rebuttal
Round 4: Pro Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion and can Rebuttal if they choose to do so, while Con will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.

Any breakage of the structure is either a penalty or automatic disqualification. Depends on how serious the breaking of the structure was.

Individuals: A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.
Should: Used to indicate what is probable.
Have: Possess, own, or hold.
Right: Morally good, justified, or acceptable.
Own: Have (something) as one's own; possess.
Gun: A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.
United States: Country located in North America, that has 50 states.

Good luck to who ever accepts!



I accept the debate
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting the debate, and will argue my position.

C1: 2nd Amendement Say's So
The obvious first argument is that the United States Constitution says we have the right to bear arms. "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). And the Constitution is the lore for our Democracy in the United States; therefore, taking away the right to own a gun from individuals proves to be unjust.

C2: Country Found On was because of Guns
As both me and my opponent both know, the way we recieved our democracy in the United States is by overthrowing the higher authority. Throwing down that higher authority was achieved by the use of guns (2), and if they are gotten rid of; then that breaks its true value of helping the United States achieve a democracy.

C3: Criminal Crisis
I. Criminals Don't Follow Laws

And even if the idea of getting rid of the right to own a gun is passed, we must ask the common sense question. Do we think that criminals are going to listen to laws? The definition to criminal is: "A person who has committed a crime" (3). A crime is the breakage of a law, and a criminal won't listen to these laws so he will be able to get a gun from the black market and such.

II. Gun Control Hurts Law Abiding Citizens
Besides the criminal not following the rules, the rules also infringe upon Law Abiding Citizens by harming their chance on getting a gun. How? Well lets see the purpose of a gun. A purpose of a gun is to shoot and possibly kill an individual if necessary. When would they kill the individual? In the form of self-defense if they are at any point threatened. And taking this idea away will lead to a lack of self-defence. In fact, stated under this picture representation:

It is clear that people use these weapons for self defence. And hence if we take away these weapons, they cannot protect themselves.

Good luck to my opponent!


3. q=definition%20of%20criminal&pc=cosp&ptag=ABB11A3B5D3&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127


1: Yes, in the constitution it does indeed say that citizens have a "right" to bear arms. But the constitution is shite, it's old and outdated, it was made back when Muskets where the most common weapons. The right to bear arms and have a civilian Militia is incredibly vague, what do they mean by a "militia"? some red-necks out of Texas? Some Paranoid conspiracy theorist sitting on top of a stockpile of assault rifles? War has changed, weapons are more deadly now than they ever have been.

2. "Country Found On was because of Guns" It is indeed true that the USA was founded on violent revolution; but almost all the other countries in the Anglo-sphere were given independence peacefully, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. The birth of a country should never define said countries existence, Modern day Russia was built by Corruption, internal pressure, extreme poverty, and a military coup d'etat, should those be the things that define Russia? A countries past should not be what defines its future.

3. If a criminal didn't have a gun in the first place than it would put the victim in less danger, countries that have more guns have been proven to have higher homicide and violent crime rates. The top 5 gun-owning western countries have had the most mass shootings per capita

Guns can be used for self-defence, but they are also normally the main reason why they are self-defence
Debate Round No. 2


C1: 2nd Amendement Says So
In this round, my opponent states: "But the constitution is shite, it's old and outdated, it was made back when Muskets where the most common weapons". I will agree that the constitution is old, but most of the things stated in the constitution are still used commonly nowadays. I will name a few Amendement stated under the constitution, and would like to point out how they are still used nowadays.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (1).

Freedom of speech is still used nowadays, and anyone can say something; yet do we abandon this law because of it being old a vague. No, we do not. And here is another example:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (2).

Everyone still has the ability to vote nowadays, but does this change? No it does not, and the same can be giving the right to bare arms. Just because it is old does not mean it means its different from the present day.

C2: Country Found On was Becaue of Guns
My opponent agrees that this country was found by the use of guns, but argues that it doesn't mean guns should be kept. My opponent states: "A countries past should not be what defines its future". I will disagree with this statement because like William Moorse once said: "The past is not dead, it is living in us, and will be alive in the future which we are now helping to make". The quote is basically that things in the past make the future, and the fact is we used guns to make this country a democracy. Getting rid of this will impact the future.

One example of how it can impact the future is with the event in Germany during the Holocaust. Before the Holocaust happened, Hitler initiated a plan on Gun Control by taking the population's guns away. They agreed because they thought it was for the greater good, but didn't realize this was Hitler's plan. The Holocaust then initiated, and no one was able to defend themselves. With a gun, they at least had a possible fighting chance (3). Now imagine if this occured to the U.S. It would be bad, and infringe upon the promise made when a democracy was formed.

C3: Criminal Crisis
In this round, my opponent quotes the following: "If a criminal didn't have a gun in the first place than it would put the victim in less danger". My opponent clearly didn't read my first argument where I stated under C3: I; I stated: "And even if the idea of getting rid of the right to own a gun is passed, we must ask the common sense question. Do we think that criminals are going to listen to laws? The definition to criminal is: 'A person who has committed a crime'. A crime is the breakage of a law, and a criminal won't listen to these laws so he will be able to get a gun from the black market and such". Even if you did ban them, the criminal would still find a way on getting a gun.

And for whether or not having guns or not having guns reduce crime, there will be both positions for this debatel; but would like to bring up one fact. Even when Britain banned guns from their country, homicide rates stayed consistent and there was no major change. Stated under this graph (4):

Even after the law was passed, homocide rates still stay consistent. So in reality, nothing really changed truly.



C1: The Amendement is an out-dated file, yes it gives us certain rights and freedoms, butwhich almost every other western country has

C2: Even if they were not able to take guns from the populace, there is no way a civilian revolt would be able to overthrow the US Government, they would be wiped out by air strikes pretty quick

C3: And the homicide rate for England did eventually go way down, and the majority of western countries with gun bans or regulations are much safer than the US
Debate Round No. 3


For the final round, I will do my final rebuttals against my opponent and then state my conclusion. My opponent on the other hand can only state his conclusion, which is stated in the structure section in Round 1.

C1: 2nd Amendement Say's So
My opponent responds with the following: "The Amendement is an out-dated file, yes it gives us certain rights and freedoms". If the amendement is out-dated, then why do a majority of its decisions in the government stay? And why can't guns be allowed to be given a right in the U.S? My opponent has failed to really address why a gun shouldn't be given a right, but just arguing that it does not mean its in the second amendement.

C2: Country Found On was Becaue of Guns
Opponent states that even if people had guns, they cannot really revolt the government. Apparently my opponent didn't read my last argument, where I stated: "With a gun, they at least had a possible fighting chance". I didn't even mention on them winning, but at least giving them a chance to fight. Also, we must remember that during the American Revolution, it was a small army fighting a whole army and they still won; so the same can be said about this current situation.

C3: Criminal Crisis
My opponent makes the claim that gun regulations make states better. However, according to the FBI, "Two sets of data published by the FBI seven months apart show increased gun ownership coinciding with a reduction in violent crime". There are charts to help look at it more in-depth, but the evidence is valid.

In conclusion, this debate went like so. My opponent makes many claims, but fails to follow through with them, and attempts to rebuttal my claims; but fails to do so because of my better arguments. For this reason, I urge voters to vote Pro!



My opponent has argued from an entirely constitutional standpoint without factoring in the obvious increase in homicides that have resulted from gun ownership. and has not considered how old, and outdated the constitution is.

My opponent genuinely believes a armed civilian force with no government oversight should run the country, is this really the type of person we could trust to keep us safe?.

Vote con
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by snkcake666 11 months ago
Instigator, great use of data and logical evidence. Contender, although you have set up your argument nicely, simply attacking the constitution does not invalidate it. If you believe it is invalid, please offer an explaination supported by evidence.
Posted by Deb-8-A-Bull 11 months ago
Trying to talk or debate with any American that thinks they should own a gun. From another country point of view. Is Ludacris. I shoot a gun once , and threw up straight away. I felt I'll. They are disgusting. I'll argue they are bad in the wrong hands , then bam mmmmm you will say. 2nd amendment , 2nd amendment, 2nd amendment. ( said in a mental simpleton voice ) the words the right to own a gun it's comical . I watch the show cops. Do you no someone who has been shoot or maybe killed by a gun. I never meet any 1 that's been shoot before, do you no someone who has been saved by a gun. By watching the cops show on TV. You should be debating the right to own a Crack pipe. Or the right to to view WWF over the age of ten. Is Canada in the USA? To far hey.? OK I'll leave you guys with it . IDIOTS. Re word ya debate to. Should should should we be should we be be be able to Ave guns and and and have guns. In the meRica . PFfffffffff .
Posted by SnaxAttack 11 months ago
Now I'm kind of curious on how the Devil's Advocate would play this out.
Posted by tajshar2k 11 months ago
I'm tempted to play the devils advocate, but i don't know many anti gun arguments.
No votes have been placed for this debate.