The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

US Citizens Should Be Required To Carry Guns Vs US Citizens Should Not Be Allowed Guns

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Zealotical has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 463 times Debate No: 106031
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing that law abiding citizens should be REQUIRED to carry guns on them in public and would make the United States safer against gun related crimes.

My opponent will be arguing that law abiding citizens should not be allowed to carry guns at all, that guns should be illegal for law abiding citizens to have in the United States, and that making guns illegal for law abiding citizens in the United States will make the US safer.

I believe that if law abiding US citizens were required to have guns on them in public, the crime rate in the US would go down but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

In order for my opponent to win, I have to be convinced that making guns illegal for law abiding United States citizens would make the United States safer instead of my way of thinking and I have to tell my opponent that I'm convinced in the final round.

I'm going to be honest on whether or not my opponent convinced me as well as I sincerely want to see my opponent's perspective. My opponent will also have the burden of proof and will have to refute my points as well as make points of their own.

I will start:

1) Some criminals are not likely to give up their guns just because it's illegal.

2) Some criminals can get guns from the black market.

3) Switzerland's crime rate is lower compared to the United States. There are more law abiding citizens in Switzerland who carry guns compared to law abiding citizens in the United States that carry guns.



Good day to you, Zeolotical. My position on the possession of guns is one of moderation, for I am a great supporter of the 2nd Amendment and of the United-States constitution. It is my view that people should be allowed to carry their weapons in public, though where I believe we come to disagree is on who, how and where one should be allowed to carry such weapons. I look forward to this conversation.

Firstly, I believe it useful to cite a few examples of how drastically frightening the gun situation of the United-States has become in the last few years. According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, the United-States has had nearly 372 mass shootings in 2015 alone, resulting in the death of 475 people. In that same year, nearly 13,286 individuals were killed by firearms and more than 26,000 were injured, excluding suicide attempts. These last two numbers come from the same BBC article I will link to at the end of this thread. With America having 101 guns per 100 people within their jurisdiction, it is clear to see that guns did not prevent the propagating of violence and firearm-related deaths in the last few years.

The first argument you make, reasonable in logic, is that the firearms in the presence of criminals will never come back into the righteous hands of law enforcement or law abiding citizens. The issue here is not as much the fact they will never give these weapons back, it is how they managed to acquire these weapons in the first place. According to CBS News, which quoted a study at the University of Chicago, many gang members obtain their guns through ways currently legal in the United-States of America, many obtaining them through asking another person to purchase the firearm, then giving it to the criminal in question.

Here is one way of fixing this problem, and to explain it, I will use the example of Canada and the current gun regulations they have in place. Within the borders of our northern neighbor, there are about thirty guns per 100 residents. According to NPR, "the U.S. has the 31st highest (gun violence) rate in the world: 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people in 2016. That was eight times higher than the rate in Canada, which had 0.48 deaths per 100,000 people " and 27 times higher than the one in Denmark, which had 0.14 deaths per 100,000." And so, being defenders of the second amendment as we are, we question if these countries have the authorization to purchase weapons. As a matter of fact, Canada and Denmark have laws allowing the purchase of a weapon. As a matter of fact, I will link in the description to a website explaining how you can access a firearm and buy a gun in Canada. Regulations are the answer. The right of one to own a weapon should be guaranteed by the constitution, but what if that person poses a threat to society, for they bear a mental illness, for they have a past criminal record, for they are on the no-fly list, for they have a history of radicalisation in whatever shape or form? If the constitution is meant to protect the citizens of the land of the free's lives, then why put machines designed to kill in the hands of those who do not respect such life?

You then go on to claiming that criminals can acquire these weapons through the black market. As I have mentioned previously, this black market is often the repurchasing of a weapon, already illegal in America, which is why I believe a gun carrier ID would resolve the problem of criminals illegally getting their hands on a gun. Furthermore, when guns can be bought freely at gun shows or stores without the need for a thorough check of the person's background and past, it is easy for criminals to get their hands on those weapons. The reason why I do not go further into this is that this argument resembles a lot the one you made beforehand about the criminals not giving back their guns.

The final argument you make is that citizens in Switzerland live in a nation with an inferior crime rate, therefore you equate this fact with there being more law-abiding citizens in the European nation. You are factually correct in saying that Switzerland has a lower crime rate than America. As a matter of fact, Switzerland ranks 182nd to America's 99th in intentional homicide rate (link below). However, your reasoning, which is that Switzerland has more law-abiding citizens is flawed, for Switzerland has one gun for every 4 people, with America having one for every person. This would, in theory, mean that the amount of homicide firearm-related deaths in Switzerland should be four times inferior to the one of the United-States. That's when you look at the numbers and realize that the there are 3.60 to every 0.21 homicides per 100 people in America compared to Switzerland annually, meaning the ratio is of about 17.14, not four as mentioned previously. To put it briefly, it is not that the citizens of Switzerland are more law-abiding, it's that the access to guns facilitates the purchase of a firearm in America compared to in Switzerland.

Here are my arguments as to why I believe it fine for America not to get rid of guns, which would not be my intention if I was in power, but to restrict it's access to criminals and people who should not bear arms as a concern for public safety.

1) A gun, to protect yourself in the case of a home invasion, rarely comes to be useful. For instance, the Department of Justice (DOJ) led an investigation from 2003 to 2007 and found that no person had been killed during a home invasion during that four year period. (link below)

2) There is, as mentioned during this last counter-argument (Switzerland case), a direct link between gun possession in a nation, the looseness of the gun laws in place and the homicide rate of a country, whether it be intentional or unintentional.

3) As a defender of the 2nd amendment, I understand the meaning behind our founding fathers' crafting of this legislation. It came as a way to guarantee all people that an authoritarian government such as the one of George III from England wouldn't take over the liberties fought for during the War of Independence. However, this legislation was crafted at a time when the deadliest weapon was a musket, which fired approximately 2 to three shots a minute. In Las Vegas, over 1,100 rounds were fired at the crowd over a period of 10 minutes. That is nearly 110 rounds a minute. Moreover, we can say that a well-regulated militia, which needs to be properly working to conform to its constitutionality, is not well-regulated when people with past criminal records, mental illnesses, and terrorism-related activities compose said militia.

Here are the links to the quotes and references in this text. I wish us both a very respectful and intricate conversation. Thank you for this opportunity.

- - (Second Paragraph - BBC)
- - (Third Paragraph - CBS)
- - (Fourth Paragraph - NPR)
- - (Fourth Paragraph - Gun Laws in Canada)
- - (Sixth Paragraph - Wikipedia but based on actual links, check references)
- - (Sixth Paragraph - Wikipedia but based on actual sources, check references)
- - (My First Argument - Department of Justice)
- (My Third Argument - Democratic Underground)
- - (My Third Argument - Wikipedia but based on actual sources, check references)
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.