The Instigator
VinhVuong
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
stk1990
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The Right To Bare Arms

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,249 times Debate No: 1658
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

VinhVuong

Pro

I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and right to bare arms. I believe that citizens should be armed ( who have a clean background and is a certified user). Many people who are murdered or raped and anything else (victims) are not armed. They have no defense for themselves If they had a gun they would've protected themselves and others by stopping the attacker.
stk1990

Con

Let us first look at what the Second Amendment says:

--- 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.

A well regulated MILITIA. That means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is strictly for the purposes of having a MILITIA. Now our biggest enemy doesn't come from Plains Indians or British Canadian soldiers crossing the St. Lawrence, and thus our first line of defense is no longer citizen militia units. We have a professional army, the best in the world. We don't need a militia. If you want to use guns, join the army.

In terms of your assertion that guns protect people more, here are some facts:

- A member of your household is 22 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound if you have a gun in your house than if you don't.

- If a gun is fired in the home, only 2 percent of the time is the gun used on an intruder. The other 98 percent percent of the time, the gun is accidentally used against the owner or a family member, or the burglar takes the gun and uses it.

- Each year 500,000 guns are stolen and put into the inner cities.

- And that's why...gunfire is the number one cause of death among young blacks.

Guns don't kill people, I admit. But guns do help.
Debate Round No. 1
VinhVuong

Pro

Alright, good argument but let me straigten this out. You say we have a professional army, well they are under the government control, if they government turns bad then they will too. So, we as citizens should have the right to bare arms if that happens.

Second thing is that I am a student in a high school, and pretty much a lot of students agree with me, I would feel safer if a trained and certified teacher was armed. Anyone can walk into the school and start shooting at free will. If a teacher had a weapon, then we would have a chance to fight back.

Question is, would you rob, rap or try to kill someone when you know that they have a weapon?

My family has a gun in a safe area in each room that you need a password to open. That is what everyone should do so it won't get stolen.

So, to close, I believe that there should be tighter security background checks, people should have a sure secure area to put your gun in, and protect yourself.
stk1990

Con

Let me see if I understand your rationale:

- We should have guns because it makes us feel safer.
- People would not harm other people if they knew that they had weapons.

School shootings are incredibly rare, and giving teachers guns is really not the answer. Putting a trained officer in schools as my high school had is a better idea. But training teachers to use handguns and be warriors in defense of their students? Not a good idea. It's just as likely that the teacher would use the gun improperly or criminally against his or her students as it is for a school shooter to attack.

In terms of your assertion that if the government goes bad on us it's a good idea to have guns to defend ourselves...That's a really big assumption. That's assuming that in the blink of an eye, our government, our army, our police officers - they could all go evil on us. That's assuming that no one would see it coming and try to stop it before the first line of defense became civilians armed with hunting guns and pistols. And that's also assuming that those civilians would be at all a match for the professional U.S. army which is now under evil ruthless fascist control.

Now I agree, many criminals would still get guns if they were made illegal. But do you really think it's a good idea if everyone carried around a handgun wherever they went? Because say you get mugged and you have a handgun, is it really going to be that great if you pull it out in the middle of the street or wherever you might be and just start shooting? And don't you think that the person who is attacking you might not just knock you on the head, but they may shoot you full of lead because they believe you to be heavily armed?

And that's because people are irresponsible. You might be a safe gun owner, but many people are not. And if we dramatically cut the production of guns in the United States, people in the inner cities would find them harder to get. Your everyday criminal would find it much harder to get guns. The hardened criminal would probably still be able to find a way to get guns, but then again in today's world, how much defense is a handgun against a hardened criminal? Most people will not know how to use their guns properly.
Debate Round No. 2
VinhVuong

Pro

The right to bare arms is restricted as I said. We should only have people who have a clean record and only a certain type of gun. If you are a hunter you may have a shotgun and/or a handgun. Besides I am a hunter and I would be very displeased if they banned guns.

So here what my proposed plan is:

1. Clean Background
2. Registered user
3. No semi-autos, or that sort of nature
4. Only handgun or shotgun.
5. Must be stoted in safe area.

Thats all we need to keep it safe. Banning guns for all people is a bad idea.

Imagine if a group of terriosts were in NYC or Washington and the citizens have no weapons to defend against and kept hostage. What would they do?
If they had guns then they would protect themseleves and fight back.
stk1990

Con

--How would people be able to defend themselves against terrorist groups if their weapons were kept in a safe place? Carrying around your weapon everywhere you go is not a good idea, for reasons I have already stated.

--If you are a hunter, go to a hunting club. It's really not a good idea to go around your back woods and just start shooting animals, especially because occasionally you run into a person. Oops.

In conclusion, guns will not keep us safe. Privately owned guns do more harm than good, and the "right" to bear arms is not in fact guaranteed by the constitution.

People are not responsible enough to own guns. You might be. But most people are not. That's why they should be reserved for the police and the army.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
Quite an obvious vote for Con. He actually RESPONDED to what the Pro said, in a way that made SENSE.

Pro, you don't put forth a plan in the last round. Come on.

Also, Pro never raised any statistics saying that guns were beneficial to public safety, just raised hypothetical scenarios with outcomes based on his opinion. Con had evidence.

I support the right to bear arms, but arguments dictate that Con won.
Posted by stk1990 9 years ago
stk1990
Care to explain your comments, Lazarus?
Posted by lazarus_long 9 years ago
lazarus_long
It MIGHT be about the right to arm bears, in which case - why not? It'd sure make things a LOT more sporting...

On a more serious note - "Con" made all the usual mistakes with regard to interpreting the 2nd amendment, etc., and not a whole lot in the way of original, rational argument. Not that "Pro" did that great a job either, but at least he had the Constitution on his side to begin with. A vote for "Pro," but it was a close call.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I think they are talking about owning bear arms. Which I strongly disagree with since not only are bears people too, but one would likely get killed trying to hunt a bear down and take its arms. Plus, this resolution promotes hatred towards yogi bear.
Posted by lazarus_long 9 years ago
lazarus_long
The right to bare arms? Sure, I'm all in favor of sleeveless shirts....
Posted by VinhVuong 9 years ago
VinhVuong
thats what i was going to say, thanks you know what is going on
Posted by Xelos 9 years ago
Xelos
"You say we have a professional army, well they are under the government control, if they government turns bad then they will too."
Highly unlikely that the majority of them would gun down their own citizens. If its a popular revolution most likely they will join the revolution itself (as was with the russian October Revolution). National guard units would side with their respective states.

Supreme court finds time and time again that the bill of rights was written for "the people" not for "the states". The bill of rights being a document for individual rights except the few cases in it which states are noted, and in those cases where the states are noted the people are as well. Why would the drafters of bill of rights write an entire document for individual rights but the 2nd amendment?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by claytone 8 years ago
claytone
VinhVuongstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
VinhVuongstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
VinhVuongstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
VinhVuongstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
VinhVuongstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Brittney 9 years ago
Brittney
VinhVuongstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by stk1990 9 years ago
stk1990
VinhVuongstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03