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

People should be allowed to own guns

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2015 Category: People
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 367 times Debate No: 81539
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Anyone can accept this debate, although please do not accept unless you are really going to debate this specific topic. For instance, I would not like it if someone accepted the debate, but started putting down reasons for why torture should not be used in war. If you would like to debate me on a different topic, please start a new debate and invite me. This debate is about people owning guns, and that is all.


I do not agree with this because one person who is capable of having a gun who knows how to use it is not the same as someone who has a gun and does not know how to use it. I give the example of the Virginia Tech shootings. That kid was a bright student and very smart but because he was mad at something he got a gun and now a ton of people are dead. The aftermath of people having guns is not worth the mess that will happen after. The trouble that people to throw to get a gun is not worth it. If you are going to get a gun you need to be clearly eligible to buy one. There should be something that goes on your driver's license or something stating that you are under no law saying you cannot buy a gun or fire arm of any sort. A mass murder gets out of jail goes and buys a gun and is not stopped because the people he is buying from don't know he just got out of jail for killing people. Do you follow? You have to think about it first before you ask.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

First off, I will quote the Second Amendment where it clearly states that individuals have a right to own guns. "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." History has proven that when the people in authority take away our gun rights, bad things happen. Hitler removed everyone's guns, and the result was the killing of innocent people and World War II. The Turks took the Armenians guns, and over one million Armenians were murdered by government. The authorities of Guatemala seized everyone's guns, and an estimated 100,000 Mayan Indians died by the hand of the government once again. Now let's look at the Revolutionary War. The colonists had direct access to weapons, and what happened? The colonists were able to overpower the British troops, with little help from the militia. This is what caused the writing of the Second Amendment. Guns protect us from a hostile government. There are many other examples of terrible things that happened because of gun control in U.S history, as well as good things that happened when individuals had a chance to actually defend themselves.

Second, I would like to address my opponent's point that was made about the mass murderer story. I will go deeper with this story. My opponent stated that without gun control, a murderer could simply go out, buy a gun, and kill whoever he wants. I would like to point out the catch to this story. If a murderer can get a gun that easily, then the people he wants to kill also have access to weapons. Thus making it way harder for him to get away with it that easily. With guns, people can actually defend themselves not only from a hostile government, but other evil things out there as well such as wild animals, criminals, and other dangerous concerns. Let's go back to the murderer story, but this time the government has all the guns. Chances are, if this criminal is not phased by the act of killing somebody, having to steal to get his hands on a weapon will not be a problem for him. Only now, he can kill all he wants and the people cannot defend themselves as easily. It can turn into something much bigger if people as individuals have no way to get guns or other weapons.


I understand what it is you are saying but I want to just say I was at Virginia Tech when the last few shooting have happened and I am blessed to still be on my feet today. It is scary being there and see how that person goes from a happy fun person to someone who holding a gun to the crowd at a football game.

I really see no problem with people owning guns, it all comes down to is it smart to let people have a gun.

I know I didn't say much but just think about it.
Debate Round No. 2


I understand your point completely. No one should have to go through such a traumatic experience. However, since this is a debate about gun ownership, I must keep defending my stance.

I believe it is smart to let people own guns because banning them would just be stupid. In the past, when the government takes everyone's gun rights, terrible things happen. I agree that the shootings at Virginia Tech were horrid things to take place, but when you try to compare that to World War II, for instance, I think the latter was much more tragic. I don't think we can prevent killings either way, because sometimes guns aren't even the problem. Bad people don't need guns to kill. It might make easier for them if they had gun rights, but there are always plenty of other options. The fact is, with gun rights people can defend themselves. If our guns are taken away from us, we are at the mercy of a hostile government and a world of corrupt human beings.


Bet-On-It forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Please vote Pro!


Bet-On-It forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by chlln 12 months ago
first to bet-on-it(since you have messages to you disabled), your comment about Hillary is absurd, "she made a mistake, let it go!" She made a mistake of leaving 7 Americans by themselves in Benghazi, i wouldn't leave 7 Americans alone ANYWHERE in Libya let alone stamp US EMBASSY on the front of it. Her state department declined the ambassadors request for security TWICE before they were attacked and the ambassador killed. She should be arrested for criminal negligence not supported for president, an embarrassment at an embassy has not been seen to this degree since the helicopters left Saigon embassy in 1975.

As to this argument this is the most ridiculous stance I have ever heard, we tried to get rid of drugs in this country too! look how that turned out! trying to get rid of guns would never work and only keep responsible people unprotected, those wishing to break the law wouldn't hesitate to break the law about owning a gun! Its this kind of thinking that left those kids in the school unprotected by a school officer or teacher with access to a gun, this is a gun free zone!!! even an officer can't have a gun here!!! (kid comes in and shoots up several people) This is a gun free country!!! Responsible people can't have guns here!!!!(same thing as the school, but on a country wide scale)

IMO you need to face the realities of this world and snap our of your liberal delusions.
Posted by carterlp 12 months ago
A regulation should be applied to owning a gun, ie. mental health screenings, etc.
A total ban of guns would do almost nothing, I don't recall the last time a criminal followed the law.
It's like banning steak knives, they can be used as weapons but can also be used in a practical manner, as do guns.
Posted by IceeeStorm1816 12 months ago
I noticed that no sources were cited on your argument for round one. Here's a little tip that I learned: Always cite your sources. You might get called for plagiarism, it will make you sound more official, and it will help your argument when people are voting when they notice your sources are all cited so they can check them out. If you don't use sources, you should really use them. They will make your arguments so much stronger and easier for you. You might already know all this and just forgot to cite them, (I have actually done that before), but I just wanted to give you a little tip just in case! ;)

Thanks again for accepting this debate! I am looking forward to future rounds!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 11 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: FF (conduct) + Con drops most of Pro's points, including the point about lack of guns leading to government abuse/genocide. These are significant impacts (args). Con wins.