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

Leave gun rights the same

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2013 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,069 times Debate No: 42377
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




We should be able to keep our guns the government has no right to take them away.


You can keep guns as long as you have a legal permit or license.. but anyways.

Gun's provide great risks to the owner and those around them. How can the government be sure that the owner of the gun is in the right state of mind to keep the gun. There are no tests to see if a person is fit to do so. Things that could go wrong with a person possessing a gun is when a person tries to rob a store or someone, hurt those living in their homes or those around them, and/or hurt them self.

Now, I know people would like a gun for reassurance and for something that may save them in a situation. But in a situation when you think you may need to use a gun, if a person is seemingly following you, or a person seems to want to rob the store you are in, most people are quick to act but not in the right way.

For example: You've probably heard of Trayvon Martin, a teenage boy who was shot by George Zimmerman, part of a neighbourhood watch. He thought Trayvon Martin had a gun in his pocket. Key word: Thought. He hurt Trayvon Martin with his gun and killed him when all that was in his pocket turned out to only be a can of arizona and a bag of skittles.
Zimmerman was quick to act but not in the right way.

If this accident happened with George Zimmerman, an honored member of the neighborhood watch and an adult. What may happen?

Debate Round No. 1


That is a very good reason I agree there should be a test before that and the waiting limit is smart but they cant just pass a law and take them all away thats just messed up we have a right to own them.

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. 2nd Amendment Bill of Rights.

I'm just saying I would like to be able to keep a gun in my home right now there is a shotgun in my room loaded with safety on and if someone comes in and tries to steal or hurt me or my family I will give him/her a chance to get out if they refuse I will call 911 if they come at me I will shoot them without hesitation or regret.

Plus theres the issue of people saying guns kill people but thats not true. Say I put a handgun on a table and it is loaded safety off and someone standing right in front of it and say. Gun kill. It will not go off if I pull the trigger we have dead or wounded person.


That statement in the 2nd Amendment Bill of Rights only applies to those in the military as they are necessary to the security of a free State. If those people, 1,429,995 men and women in the military and 794,300 in the police force are necessary to the security of the state then aren't they responsible for taking care of us? They went through years of military camp and training at the police academy yet we have no training and we get to handle something like this?

Also, precautions could be taken to prevent you and your family from being a victim of breaking and entering. For example, and alarm system, closing windows, locking doors etc. which are highly encouraged and advertised often.

And sorry but could you rephrase your last argument because I don't quite get it. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2


Ok first the rephrase I know some people accidentally kill themselves or others with guns that happened to my dads friend. What I mean is how some people say that the gun kills the person but others say if you lay a gun down with no one using it will it kill someone? No it wont. Say I sit a gun down on a table and a random person say best friend doesn't notice the gun. The gun can't shoot your friend with no one touching it, but say I pick it up and aim at him and fire it will kill him but I would be the one to do it.

And the 2nd amendment should count for everyone.

The security issue is a good reason but one day I was home alone and I am always precocious and locked doors and windows. Then I took a shower, but when I get out I hear someone running around I call 911 because I wouldn't get to my room and if I didn't lock the bathroom door God knows what he would have done. If I was in my room I could have protected myself with my gun.


Ah, I see. Thank you.

We can never be certain with guns.

And with the change of one law, it would be difficult because there would be a change of others.

If you had been in the washroom and you say your gun was in your room, I don't think there would be enough time to act and get the gun. It's always uncertain.

With the release of guns, you never know who may be possessing these guns. Some would be legal and some would not.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Evan_Cummings 2 years ago
We need to remember you are referring to law abiding citizens. If you are mentally deranged you will get your hands on some type of weapon be it a knife, or a gun. Same goes if you're a criminal. It is MUCH more expensive at least here in kentucky (dont forget guns rights are a states right not a federal right.) to buy weapons from a store rather than a private sale. (which by kentucky state law is also allowed)
Each state has every right to make gun laws as liberal or as restricted as they want. Here in ky you can buy just about anything you want, including Automatic weapons. Mind you, an AK-47, AR15 are not assault rifles if they are only capable of semi automatic fire. Which means you have to pull the trigger fully and release every single time. Rather than an assault weapon which is categorized as being fully automatic and,or burst fire mechanism. Automatic rifles are considered CLASS III weapons and you have to have a special license to sell them and undergo some tests and pay an extra yearly tax here in ky in order to own them. We can also buy suppressors here under the same parameters of buying automatic weapons.
Posted by DrHaz3 2 years ago
I'd argue that anyone can have a gun as "Arms" is a broad term for a means of defense. Everyone regardless of your mental stability/beliefs has the right to defend themselves against their aggressor even up to the entire population of the world vs 1 man. If the entirety of the world is out to get you unjustly, you as an individual should be able to use any means available to you to preserve your own life. This is a natural right by the laws of nature and god and can not be alienated or altered. It is a self evident right. I even would argue that this defense would include the use of explosive materials, chemicals, nuclear weapons, and even doomsday devices. It is asinine to argue otherwise as you would merely be arguing for the victimization of the individual with no means to protect their rights. How do you have any rights if you do not have the right to defense through arms?
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
In my opinion, neither extreme (unlimited access to guns by anyone or no guns permitted except by government employees such as policemen and soldiers) should be the case. I believe that people with mental illnesses that may cause them to inflict harm on themselves or others should not have access to guns, and neither should felons. However, if they do get access to such weapons, and law enforcement officers are not present, everybody else may need a gun to defend themselves and their loved ones. Total confiscation of all civilian-owned firearms in the United States is impossible, because there are as many guns as people, many of them unregistered. Also, guns may be smuggled in from other nations (such as Mexico), manufactured (through conventional means or through new methods such as 3D Printing), or maybe stolen from law enforcement officers. Therefore, I argue that people who intend on using guns for harmful purposes will find ways to access guns, and the police are not always present.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 2 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to CON - While the arguments were not strong, CON did not convince me that the laws should change.
Vote Placed by imabench 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides used mostly their own opinions in their arguments, with neither side pulling away from each other, but con did actually use sources when pro did not so sources go to con