The Instigator
Chrisz
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
eastcoastsamuel
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should 18 year olds be able to purchase fire arms and have conceild weapons lcences

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
eastcoastsamuel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,355 times Debate No: 25993
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Chrisz

Pro

The reason I pick this topic is because there are so many issues with teenagers getting kidnapped, hurt, hospitalized for people trying to either kill or hurt them. Now for me just hearing all of these incidents happening just make me sick and I thing that the 18 year old's should be able to purchase fire arms so they are able to defend them self's if this happens to them. Now They would have to get training and take a class before they are able to purchase a fire arm, so I can understand the concern there and trust me parents I can completely understand your concern with this. But as or me I rather not see my kids get hurt or hospitalized for someone trying to hurt my children. So that is why I believe in letting 18 year old's the right to purchase a fire arm.
eastcoastsamuel

Con

I oppose the resolution, "Resolved: 18 year olds should be able to purchase firearms and have concealed weapons licenses." First, an eighteen year-old (or anyone for that matter) can use another means to protect themselves other than firearms, such as pepper spray. This would a.) reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries and b.) prevent firearms from being stolen by others and used for criminal purposes. Second, a firearm in the wrong hands can result in injury and death. Examples of eighteen year-olds killing others with firearms include the Jokela school shooting in which nine people died (including the perpetrator) and the St. Pius X High School shooting, where one person was killed and five others were injured. Due to the number of risks, and other ways for eighteen year-olds to defend themselves, I oppose the resolution that eighteen year-olds should be able to purchase firearms and have concealed weapons licenses.
Debate Round No. 1
Chrisz

Pro

I see where you are coming from, that is why in my starting paragraph I said that you should first have to get training and you would have to get a certificate of completion. from a trusted licensed officer. and plus those shootings were caused by someone illegally buying guns and or selling them on the streets, now granted that they were very unfortunate accidents but those people were arrested and put into jail.
eastcoastsamuel

Con

Even with training and a certificate of completion from an officer can a gun get into the wrong hands. James Holmes was once enrolled as a PhD student and had a 3.949 GPA. And he went on to kill twelve people in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Once there were two teenagers living in Colorado, and they were considered bright and knowledgeable students with futures ahead of them. They were good with computers and although they butted heads with the law once, they apologized sincerely and went on with their lives. Their names were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and they went on to commit the worst high school shooting in American history in 1999. It's even more disturbing considering Eric was eighteen (Dylan was seventeen) at the time. Bottom line: eighteen year olds cannot be trusted be with guns, even with laws in place. It doesn't matter if those people went to jail or not, they still happened even with everything in place.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DeFool 5 years ago
DeFool
I regret that a compelling argument was missing from this contest: that is, that 18 year old persons can be recruited into the military. It seems odd to me that these veterans will be prevented from carrying their service rifles.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 5 years ago
DeFool
ChriszeastcoastsamuelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with the proposition going in - and that did not change over the course of the debate. I gave a point to Pro for conduct - by a narrow margin, and spelling and grammar to Con. The best argument, sadly missed, was that 18 year old persons may serve in the military, where some of them will be weaponized. Why these persons should not be allowed to carry their service rifles is beyond my ability to understand. All hail airmax1227.
Vote Placed by danjr10 5 years ago
danjr10
ChriszeastcoastsamuelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As I would consider 18 to be the age of a legal adult. i vote PRO on this issue