People should be allowed to own guns
Debate Rounds (4)
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 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.
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.
Bet-On-It forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 11 months 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:||4||0|
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.
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.