The Instigator
buelg
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Viper-King
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Viper-King
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,325 times Debate No: 23822
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

buelg

Con

First round is acceptance.
Second round is one big reason.
And last round is rebutt.
Now, we have to wait for you to accept this debate!
Viper-King

Pro

I accept the resolution: U.S. citizens should be allowed to carry weapons freely.
Debate Round No. 1
buelg

Con

First, thank you viper king for accepting this debate.

Now, I will tell you my arguments.
I as the opposition team oppose to the resolution because if U.S citizens are allowed to carry guns,
it would threaten the lives of other neighborhoods, too. For example, this year, a man from Korea
(oh, why my country?!) had too much stress that he even decided to kill people. As a result, he went
to Texas, bought a gun, and just went shooting everyone he saw. What I'm trying to say is, people around
you can kill you any minute. Of course they will get punished, but it would be too late for you.
Although it can be good since you can protect your selves if you have one, it can be used as a purpose
of Assassin. If Americans keep on legalizing the carriage of guns, more and more incidents like those
above will happen. It is never too late, so they should illegalize U.S. citizens carrying guns.
Viper-King

Pro

I will first go to my own case and then to my opponent's case.

Contention 1: Carrying weapons freely is already legal in the U.S.

1st of all, I will state that "U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns" because it is a protected right in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. "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 upon." Thus, U.S. citizens are already allowed to carry weapons freely.

Rebuttal:

"because if U.S citizens are allowed to carry guns, it would threaten the lives of other neighborhoods, too"

Um, any examples or sources? U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns now and at least 34th in intentional homicide rate by country per 100,000 people. Thus, the U.S.A. has already proven that carrying guns in not as threatening as thought.

"For example, this year, a man from Korea
(oh, why my country?!) had too much stress that he even decided to kill people. As a result, he went
to Texas, bought a gun, and just went shooting everyone he saw. "

Sources? I don't know when or if this happened but just because someone has stress doesn't mean they will shoot someone. Many people have lots of stress and they are not inclined to shoot everyone. This is an extreme case of being over-stressed while having guns.

" What I'm trying to say is, people around
you can kill you any minute."

No, they can't. We have so much security these days that there are very few guns besides in the few crime-popular cities such as Lose Angeles, Oakland, etc.

Thus, guns should remain legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
buelg

Con

Um, first of all, I need to inform you that you need to right your rebuttals in the 3rd round.
But instead, you just wrote in the 2nd round. So why don't you counter rebutt in the 3rd round?

Rebuttal:

You said that U.S citizens being allowed to carry guns is a protected right, thus, they are already allowed
to carry weapons.

First of all, I know it is one of your rights (and I wouldn't want to infringe it alright), and that is the reason why I had opened this debate. I think it's time to change that point. If only that law changes there will be no more accidents I
have told you.

Secondly, the reason why that right is wrong is it doesn't describe the punishment according to assasinating other
citizens. If that punishment is described, there will be no coincidence like above.

Counter rebuttal:

1. Before talking about my sources, let's talk about yours. Your wikipedia source shows that America has moderate
rate of intentional homicide, alright. But it also doesn't show that there are only little bit.
And, intentional homicide.
There are not-intentional homicides occuring because of the carriage of guns, right? what happened to those?

2. http://dc4korean.com...
http://ko.wikipedia.org...
http://news.donga.com...
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr...
Look, this is all kinds of sources.

3. We should respect the minority, too. You know why? What if people come to those places and make large
gun fights? People, would die, and who should their families blame? the government?
Viper-King

Pro

Sorry.

Counter Rebuttal:

What I'm stating is the right to bear arms is under the Constitution. The Constitution was that the USA was founded upon. Taking away guns would be unconstitutional and would be against everything the USA was back then. That would go against all of the USA's principles. Thus, there would be so much anti-American.

Rebuttal:

I think that the people who die are very few. I can't read Korean unfortunately. However the death rate is few. Especially the intentional homicide rate. Also we do respect the minority, there are not lots of non-gang gun fights. The government also recompensates for each gun death.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
there are not that many guns in the high crime cities... that's the problem
Posted by buelg 4 years ago
buelg
I really tried to win..really..
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
This wasn't that great of a debate, but here's how I allocated points:
Conduct- it went to the Con because the pro blatantly went against the structure
Grammar- Neither of the debators really had great grammar
Arguments - Went to the pro because I feel he made the best arguments in the round
Sources - I kind of had to give this to the Pro. All of the sources in the Con were in Korean, and in an english-speaking website it's not exactly the most reliable thing around.
Posted by buelg 4 years ago
buelg
nobody voted, eh?
Posted by Viper-King 4 years ago
Viper-King
Sorry dudes. I was busy finishing my more important debates.
Posted by CliffTheCorrupt 4 years ago
CliffTheCorrupt
This debate is just....awful.....
Posted by CalvinAndHobbes 4 years ago
CalvinAndHobbes
Best Closing Statement Ever... "Thus, there would be so much anti-American."
Posted by MurderMan 4 years ago
MurderMan
Yeah, sacrifice freedom for security...it's been working well so far, hasn't it? lol.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
buelgViper-KingTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: pro won
Vote Placed by CakeIsTruth 4 years ago
CakeIsTruth
buelgViper-KingTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure Con was even trying. Pro won easily. 2nd amendment, baby!
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
buelgViper-KingTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments barely hold water, but Pro's is a little more valid.
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
buelgViper-KingTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving Conduct to Con for the fact that Pro did not follow the debate structure that Con posed in the first round. However, Pro had obviously won S/G. Convincing args. to Pro because his arguments made sense and had well-cited sources so we could read up more on what he was saying, thus, also earning him sources. Good debate, I would love to debate this as Pro in the future!