The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

should veterans be allowed to wear 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 673 times Debate No: 64953
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




hi, i am DYDY and i am against the fact that veterans should be alowed to wear guns.

there isn't even much to say or to think about it. the facts are there. we cannot trust them with wearing guns since we don't know how their experience in war was, and they could potentially be mentaly ill, which increases the chances of having them either comitt a suicide or hurt and kill somebody. in fact, Since 2000, 96 ADF members have killed themselves. Another 13 veterans have committed suicide after leaving the ADF, and there are believed to many more unreported suicides, single motor vehicle accidents, or families that do not lodge claims. (according to it's scary enough to know that a couple veterans could be walking down our streets with guns, and that we cannot defend ourselves if something was to happen.

another fact is that veterens are retired, they are out of bussiness, so why would you still allow them to have guns? yes they should still be paid and honored for what they did for the country but leaving them with guns is just not right. it would be compared to allowing a taxi driver to keep his taxi after he retires. it doesn't benefit anyone, and again, it's a potential danger for the veteran himself and for his neighboors. and we already discussed why.

then some will say that it's for protecting themselves that veterans should be allowed to wear guns. well, that would mean the police does not do their job enough, and that doesn't sound right either. we got police officers everywhere in the USA for example, and even though the criminality rate would not change much, they are still important, and they do maintain peace and order in the city. so, why would someone even need a gun when he can perfectly go to a police station if ever he felt treatened by someone.

in a few words, i definately stand agains having veterans wear guns because it's not safe, it's not important and they already have police officers to play that role. and for this three reasons, everyone should vote against that resolution.


It is are constitutional right to have guns. Not allowing veterans to have guns is a violation to there rights. The government shouldn't be able deiced.

You suggest that guns lead to suicide. As it may be true that guns play apart in a lot of suicides, without guns doesn't necessary mean these gun related suicides wouldn't happen. If someone is so depressed to the point that they want to end there life, then they wouldn't let something like, the unavailability to get a gun to stop them. There are multiple different ways to kill your self.

You also say that the argument that guns are used for protection doesn't apply if the Police are doing there job. This is false, even a really good police force, doesn't know everything that is going on at any time. Imagine if someone breaks into your house and you call the police. It is good to know the police is on there way, but you need something to defend your self, right now.

You also say that not allowing them to have guns would protect us, but 60% of all gun crimes can lead to crooked gun dealers. So if they were truly mentally insane, then they world probably still find away to get gun.

If all this wasn't enough, then keep in mind, its still a violation of there constitutional rights .
Debate Round No. 1


it is truly sad to hear about all those crimes committed by people with illegal guns, but it is a fact that the government has to work on an see how to reduce gun traffic.

but, i do not think we would be violating any constitution if we take away a veteran's gun. as i said, you cannot retired and still have all of your job's "benefits". veterans can surely get other guns by whichever way they can. if we were to forbide them to wear guns after taking the first one away, then it would be considered as violating the constitution (of course if they do have a permit for the second gun).

still, they cannot be allown to have guns for safety reasons. we are talking about well trained people that know exatly what is a gun and how to use it, but we just don't know what they could be able to do once they retire; will they stay cool or will they just shot at anyone bothering them? we don't know. and even if they do get guns illegally or legally, the government would at least have done something to avoid it.


Tho you make up some good points, but taking away there guns still wouldn't change any thing. If you take away there guns and they are mentally ill and determinant to use guns, to harm them, or others. Then odds are, they're going to get another gun. Give me a week and I bet I could, figure out how to get a gun, without a permit. Saying that the government should take away all of the veterans guns just because of few who suffer from PTSD(Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) is like saying that the government should take away all of our guns, because 5.2 million adults a year, who don't even serve in the military, suffer from PTSD.

You also state that veterans shouldn't be allowed to have guns, it there only reasoning for wanting one is protection. Are solders may be well trained, but there isn't much you can do if some one with a gun is threatening you and your not in arms reach to do anything. Another thing is that you shouldn't have to have a reason in order to get a gun. It is are right to have guns, you don't need a reason to have something that is your right.
Debate Round No. 2


DYDY forfeited this round.


My oppenent has no respnce, so yeah
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DYDY 2 years ago
sorry, i didn't the time going by. i missed the third round...
Posted by DYDY 2 years ago
i hope my opponent will be understanding enough. i apologize if something is unclear. thank you
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro overall dominated, except neither used sources and Con had better grammar.