The Instigator
Pro (for)
12 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Gun Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,157 times Debate No: 36236
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (44)
Votes (3)




I am challenging my opponent to a debate on Gun Rights. I noticed her post on a gay marriage issue claiming that gay marriage should be allowed because everyone has certain rights in a free country. I am alright with her argument of gay marriage. Shortly thereafter, I noticed that she was against gun rights. I find it puzzling and ironic that she proclaims marriage a right, even though it is NEVER mentioned in the Constitution, but she is willing to ignore our 2nd Amendment Rights.


I accept the challenge.

Well, why don't you think about it? Allowing gay marriage will, if anything, REDUCE the number of deaths in the country. Teen and even adult suicide caused by people bullying others because they are gay will be reduced as the government itself accepts the concept of people being gay.

Looser control on guns will INCREASE the number of deaths. Don't bother giving the argument that people can prevent a shooter from killing them or somebody else if they have a gun. A study was conducted and found that usually when an armed citizen attempted to stop a gunman, they were usually mortally wounded or killed. Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a gun rights expert also says that when civilians try to involve themselves they end up spilling more blood. Face it, a lawyer or scientist by profession is very likely to have less good aim than a police officer. What if they missed? How many more people would die? In other words, don't try to be your own police force.

About the Constitution, the right to bear arms is one of the only ones that people have not made exceptions to. Take an example, the Constitutional right to practice whatever religion you want. There are restrictions on that right that you are choosing to ignore. If someone was practicing a religion that involved human sacrifice in the US, they would be in jail, even if they claimed that they were just practicing their religion. The freedom of religion does not extend the whole way. Neither should the right to bear arms.

Now, I have a few points of my own to make

1.) Many gun accidents do not happen on purpose. There are many horrific stories out there of little kids finding their parent's weapons and killing somebody accidentally. Innocent bloodshed is routine in gun accidents.
2.) Many mass shootings such as the Sandy Hook school shootout and the movie theater tragedy used registered guns. How many tragedies does it take for you to realize that guns, even registered ones do not help anybody? In 2010, 31076 Americans died as a result of guns. This is 85 deaths EACH DAY and over 3 gun deaths EACH HOUR. Think about it.
3.) With guns comes an increase in homicide and suicide. Quoting the Daily Kos "Children here in the US are on average ten times more likely to kill themselves using a gun, and nine times more likely to die by accidental firearm injury than children in other wealthy, industrialized nations."
4.) The US is the country with the most guns in the world (yes the WORLD) with approximately 88 guns per 100 people. The country with the second most guns is Yemen, and they aren't very close. They have about 54.8 guns per 100 people, which is significantly less than 88. Are you are suggesting we allow people to buy more guns? I don't think so. So this proves that the more guns, the worse the heartbreak. The US leads the world in gun ownership and gun tragedies. Doesn't that show something?

Debate Round No. 1


This is a gun debate, so I will just keep it at that.

I see how you brought up the Sandy Hook shooting, but sitting here saying that more gun laws will prevent more gun crime is just false logic. Especially when you consider that the state of Connecticut already had an Assault Weapons Ban. It seems as though you want the law abiding citizens to not have the means to protect themselves against the criminals who will get weapons anyway because they have no such desire to follow any laws. Here is a good example (you might have heard of this guy prior:

Adam Lanza shot his mother (#1) then stole three of her guns (#2, #2, and #4). Lanza then stole her truck (#5) and illegal transported three weapons (#6, #7, and #8). He then carried those guns into the school without a carry permit (#9, #10, and #11). Lanza then proceeded to break into the school (#12) and brought all three guns on school property (#13, #14, and #15). Adam Lanza concluded this law breaking fiasco by shooting 26 more people (#16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, and #41. In total he broke FORTY-ONE laws. Yet while the victims still lay in pools of their own blood, liberals like yourself are arguing that had there been more laws, this tragedy could have been averted.

-Past Attempts of Gun Right Bans-

Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40% higher than before the ban, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime.

In comparison, let"s take a look at Britain, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world. Given that one of the most vocal advocates for gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook has been a British citizen " Piers Morgan " who has used his platform on CNN to attack the second amendment, the contrast is illuminating.

Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher per capita than the US and the highest in the world amongst "rich" countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990R42;s.

Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves.

In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives.

Another interesting thing to think about is the fact that Medical Errors, Unintentional Injuries, Alcohol Abuse, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Unintentional Poisoning, Drug Abuse, Unintentional Falls, and Non-Firearm Homicides ALL cause more death than Firearm Homicides. Over 50 times the amount of people that die from Firearm Homicides die from Tobacco Abuse every year, but I do not see ANYONE trying to ban or limit that.


-The Founders on Gun Rights-

The founding fathers (who drafted the Constitution) believed that the citizens should not only be armed, but armed as heavily as the United States Government!! Take these quotes into consideration:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46
- James Madison

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29
- Alexander Hamilton

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
- Patrick Henry

"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..."
- George Mason

It is very clear that the founders obviously believed that we should be armed as individuals, not only as a militia.

-Liberal Logic Gun Analogy by Doug Hagin-

"Liberal logic says if we had fewer guns, we would also have fewer crimes.

Therefore, from this we must conclude Liberal logic also dictates the following.

Fewer eating utensils would soon lead to less obesity. Fewer restaurants would also lead to less obesity, as would fewer cattle. After all cows give milk, and milk can be fattening. Cattle also give us beef, which can also make us fat.

So we can conclude, using Liberal logic, that if we had no cows, no restaurants and no utensils, obesity would be quickly eradicated.

Fewer pens and pencils would lead to fewer grammatical errors such as misspellings. Fewer pens and pencils would also lead to fewer notes in class, thus leading to fewer kids getting in trouble for passing notes in class.

Also without pens and pencils, students could not write nasty things about classmates could they. So we must eliminate these tools of intolerance.

Paper too, should be tightly controlled. Without paper, even students with pens or pencils would be unable to write bad things or use poor grammar while writing.

So using Liberal logic, which says more gun control and laws will lessen violent crime, we must also confess that having tight controls on pen, pencil, and paper would curtail poor grammar and hateful writing."

-Doug Hagin


I rest my case for the time being and I look forward to seeing your next rebuttal.


You did ask about it...

I'm sorry to break this to you, but Connecticut tightened its gun laws AFTER and because of the shooting.
OK, let's make this simpler. If you are selling a gun to somebody, how do you know if they are a law abiding citizen or a budding serial killer? How do you know that this weapon will not pass into the hands of a serial killer? The truth is, you don't know.
Exactly right. Now subtract the gun and gun related events from there, and what do you have?
And where did those handguns come from? It is simple to buy the gun in a neighboring state with less restrictions"
I must admit to you that all of this Second Amendment stuff is really annoying me. Don't you have any other arguments? The Constitution is not a valid argument because (A) The times change and living by the rules of 1776 will not necessarily work in 2013, (B) The second amendment outlines a right for a MILITIA to bear arms anyways, and (C ) The Constitution does not outline all problems the nation has faced, and people have solved those problems like slavery quite successfully without the advice of the founding fathers.
You talk about knives, and I am thinking, could all those kids and people been killed by a knife at Sandy Hook? A man with a knife is much less dangerous than a man with a gun.
I can tell you why the media don't talk about getting rid of knives. It's because they serve a culinary purpose. Guns were made to kill animals and people. Those are their only purposes. Period.

I disagree. Look at these numbers.
Total gun deaths in the US
2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874
Almost all of these deaths are those law abiding citizens you talk about. The US is trying it your way. The people of the US are getting more and more guns, and more and more graves along with those guns. If it was working, wouldn't those numbers be decreasing? They increase by hundreds of deaths each year. How many more thousands of people need to die for conservatives to realize that guns aren't a logical solution?
You don't think so? The US is moving in the right direction, NIH is banning smoking on campus, people are getting more info about how to quit". Hotlines have been set up for alcohol and drug abuse, suicides, there are more traffic cameras to catch people speeding to prevent accidents, and the list goes on and on. Should gun violence be the only thing on your list that does not have a control and prevention measure?

With all due respect to all of the people that you quoted, they are all long dead to my knowledge. The times do change, things that were fine in 1776 just MIGHT not be fine in 2013. Just a thought.

It would. I'm not saying it should be implemented, but don't you agree that everyone would drop a few pounds with no restaurants, utensils, or cows? The reason that they're not banned is that utensils have been used in many non food related things, such as science projects and home art. Restaurants can be a place of celebration. Cows can be at zoos and the like.

Ah, but with paper we run into the same thing all over again. Paper serves a purpose other than to be harmful to people, so it's fine.
See, when something is banned because of one thing it does, if it was used for other things that had to be done, those things will not be able to be done and the banned item will soon make a re-entry. Guns are used to kill, which is what they should be banned for. They have no other purpose, so it is fine.

Side Note:
I noticed that somebody said that you were messaging random people trying to get them to vote for you in this debate. What kind of karma is that? This is supposed to be a battle of wits, where the best person wins! Winning should not be calculated by the person who messaged the most people telling them to vote for him! I would lose in that case, as I have not told ANYBODY to vote for me. I urge you to stop so this is a fair debate.

Debate Round No. 2


First of all, I did not ask people to vote on my side or the other. I asked people to comment on this debate so it would get more attention. I am fairly sure I told my friends NOT to vote for me and to choose the person with the best debating skills and sources.

You claim that guns are just for killing people and animals. Yes, that is true, but just like knives, guns also serve an important purpose...Unless you don't view hunting and killing animals for food so your family doesn't starve as a good purpose. Why do you think police have guns? Because, at times it is the ONLY WAY to stop a crime from taking place or continuing to take place. Why do you think there have been NO mass shootings at gun ranges or gun shows, but there have been a countless number of mass shootings at these so called, "Gun-Free Zones"? The answer is simple. CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE ABOUT LAWS. The quicker you understand that, the easier this debate will be. I wish we could have it your way. I wish that only good people received guns, I wish that criminals would submit to back round checks, so we would know who to give a gun to and who to say no to, and I wish, just like you do that criminals would respect gun free zones, but the fact is, THEY DO NOT CARE ONE BIT.

I saw in your fist response where you mentioned kids getting a hold of guns and shooting each other and others. The gun is not to blame in this case. The ignorance of the parents is to blame. There are plenty of stories about children getting a hold of knives (who in your opinion serve a culinary purpose) and stabbing, cutting, disfiguring, and killing each other with those very knives. You may think I am talking about a Machete or a Hatchet, but the knives used in most if not all of these cases are everyday kitchen knives you and I use to cut our meet at the dinner table.

Again, you refused to address Chicago's Hand Gun ban and the Gun Crime increase that followed. This is logic and common sense and it refers back to my argument of how there have been NO MASS SHOOTINGS IN ANY GUN SHOWS, but there are many in GUN FREE ZONES. The logic is right there in front of you. Criminals will get guns anyway and in the long run, you leave the citizen defenseless when push comes to shove. I wish we didn't have to worry about things like this, but when you are dealing with people (especially people in Chicago where crime has soared) you are going to have these problems.

Let's take the Newtown crime and dissect what went wrong.

The Newtown killer was a mentally disturbed young man living with his mother. She had legally purchased her arsenal and had even taught her son how to responsibly handle firearms.

What she did not do was: (1) deal appropriately with her son"s mental illness; (2) safely contain her guns so that her son could not access them.

As much as anyone, I am eager to do whatever will make a difference. But I"m unconvinced that what is being proposed will provide the solution we seek.

Universal background checks are a perfectly good idea, except that they won"t stop the burglar who recently cleaned out our house of all our legally purchased rifles and shotguns, including an antique that had belonged to my great-grandfather, who, as sheriff of Barnwell County, S.C., confiscated the gun from the triple murderer he tracked for three days and finally killed. (I want that gun back, please.)

Those guns are now in circulation among an element of society that has no intention of submitting to a background check or any other well-intentioned effort to ensure that only good guys have guns.

Two new studies released at the beginning of May 2013 have shown that the primary factor in the reduction of the number of gun homicides and violent gun crimes is not gun control, but rather the proliferation of legal gun ownership.

In a study released by Pew Research, violent gun crimes are significantly lower now than they were at their peak during the mid 1990s. Gun homicides declined 49% from 1993 to 2010, despite the fact that population in the United States grew during the same period.

Other violent crimes involving firearms including robberies, assaults, and sex crimes declined 75% in 2011 as compared to 1993. The data also showed that six-in-ten firearms deaths are actually suicides, meaning they are not victims of criminal violence.

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 31,672 deaths from guns in the U.S. during 2010. Nearly 20,000 of those deaths were gun related suicides.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are unaware of this decline in firearms violence. The Pew study found that 56% incorrectly perceive that gun crime is actually higher now than it was two decades ago.

Fortunately, mass murders, while tragic, are exceeding rare. Mass shootings represent less than 1% of all shooting related homicides.

While many gun control advocates, including Senator Diane Feinstein attempted to use the Newtown tragedy to advance her Assault Weapons Ban proposal, an DOJ analysis of the 1994 ban failed to show that there was a "significant impact" on assault weapons use and failed to support the allegation that large capacity magazines lead to more violent gun crimes.

In all of these studies, there is no data that supports the idea that a reinstatement of any Assault Weapons Ban would have an impact on future tragedies.

The City of Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in America, yet in 2012 there were 512 gun related homicides, an increase of 15% over 2011. The murder rate in Chicago three times the murder rate in the rest of Illinois. Law enforcement also reports that 80% of the murders and shootings in Chicago are gang-related. It would appear that the 'gun problem' in Chicago is really more of a 'gang problem'.

Despite the efforts of gun control advocates and much of the mainstream media to convince the American people that they must surrender some of their Second Amendment rights to reduce gun violence, the data simply does not support that conclusion.

Perhaps these revelations will help the American people recognize the wisdom of Ben Franklin's words when he said "Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."

I will finally rest my case in saying that no government can take the rights away from any citizen of owning a gun. The guns people use to defend their family should be their choice. We need to stop treating everyone like a criminals just because a few nut jobs go crazy with the means they have. There have been a numerous amount of other heinous crimes and destructive madness committed with knives and even something as harmless as a pencil. The point remains; If someone is intent on hurting another person, they are NOT going to give up when easy access to a gun is not present. They will either buy it illegally or steal it and end up committing the crime anyway. Even with gun control laws, if a gun is registered to me and then stolen from me, there is no way of finding where that gun is. Another harmful affect of gun registration is the government (or others) revealing who and who does not have a gun like they did in New York. This is an easy gateway for criminals to pick and choose the houses with the least amount of guns. There is one question you need to answer that I believe will solve this debate. If you were a criminal who wanted to cause extreme amounts of violence, would you go into a well armed area or a gun free zone? The answer is obvious. Criminals do not want to rob or disturb places with lots of guns because they know they wouldn't get far. I rest my case.


OK, that's cool. Sorry for the incorrect accusation, I had to make sure.
How many people buy a gun to shoot food because they are starving in the US? Yep, basically nobody.
I believe that police should be armed, don't get me wrong. I am against regular civilians carrying heavy duty assault weapons.
All right, let me tell ya something. Criminals often don't think things all the way through. I highly doubt that Lanza would have done what he did if his mom did not have firearms in the house. Gun control is basically making it HARDER for these people to get their hands on these guns in the first place.
The ignorance of the parents may be to blame, but that does not change the fact that an innocent kid died because of this gun. See, you cannot assume that everybody with a gun will be responsible. It is a risk. There are plenty more stories about kids and gun violence then there are about kids and knife violence. Oh, I realize that you weren't talking about only machete's, they don't really serve a culinary purpose, do they?
Personally, I am a very empathetic person who has had my share of difficulties in life. I can greatly relate to the pain of losing a loved one. These victims were killed unnecessarily. Place yourself in the shoes of a parent of a kid who died. Wouldn't you want less guns out there or at the very least increased restrictions on these weapons of death?
About Chicago, it will not work for only one city to have these laws. It is not really difficult to drive to a nearby city and buy a gun there.
Please don't copy and paste arguments from news sites. This isn't copy and paste world, its make your own opinion and express it world.
Guns make suicide much easier for people. Many other forms of suicide such as drug overdose can be fixed if the individual has a change of heart and goes to the hospital or something but once you pull the trigger of a gun against your head, you won't have a chance to regret what you did. A study was conducted using survivors of suicide attempts using firearms. More than half of the people had done it impulsively, and had not been contemplating suicide for more than 24 hours. None of them had thought about it enough to write a suicide note. This shows that a gun is an easy way to commit, and one of the ways that is very often fatal.
Well, if its more of a 'gang problem' the guns aren't really the problem, the gangs are.
Also, traffic accidents cause a lot of deaths, right? Well, gun violence causes basically the same amount of deaths now.

Another thing to note is that gun rights advocates don't mind taking their shoes off at airports for security, submit themselves to those airport scanners, have their phone provider turn over all records to the police should there be cause for suspicion in the name of fighting terrorism. Those are rights that people don't really FIGHT that much. The ironic thing is that they are against gun control even though it kills people, because its "taking away their rights".
I would like to quote a few recent people on gun control.

"If we don't get gun control laws in this country, we are full of beans. To have the National Rifle Association rule the United States is pathetic"
~Harvey Weinstein

"Yes, people pull the trigger - but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary and delay means more death and horror. "
~Eliot Spitzer

"You don"t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that"s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars" five thousand dollars per bullet" You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars...."
~Chris Rock

In conclusion, more gun control would save more lives of the population by reducing the deaths of innocent people by disarming their attackers or themselves.

Thank you for having this debate with me and let the best person win. :)
Debate Round No. 3
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 5 years ago
yes to no guns! thatll solve everything! finally peace at last... now we can all have hand to hand combat with swords and knives in this liberal paradise!!! I've always wanted to get in a sword fight or hand to hand combat.. (sarcasim) I also want to see little white woman try and fend off a huge black man attempting to rape and kill her with absolutely nothing... home invasion? No problem.. don't grab a colt.. grab a Calaphalon! Them b!tches slice n dice like nothing!
Posted by natertig 5 years ago
Sure just drop it please. This debate is over.
Posted by Tulbakra 5 years ago
Cuz this site is crawling with conservatives?
Posted by natertig 5 years ago
I don't know, you tell me.
Posted by Tulbakra 5 years ago
You were never debating with me in the first place. I don't know you, you don't know me. How can you make that statement? Since when did a debate work like that? You didn't refute ALL of MistyBlues arguments, so why did you win?
Posted by natertig 5 years ago
Point is, I won and you need to get over it. I have an ego that is no larger than your own. You just need to learn when to drop it. Until you make points strong enough to refute ALL of my previous arguments, I have no business or interest responding to you.
Posted by Tulbakra 5 years ago
Are you going to respond to my points, or your own ego?
Posted by natertig 5 years ago
I have no idea what winning has to do with sleeping at night, but alright.
Posted by natertig 5 years ago
I have no idea what winning has to do with sleeping at night, but alright.
Posted by Tulbakra 5 years ago
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Merrit 5 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 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S&G tied. Pro made convincing arguments, and negated most of Con's arguments. Arguments go to Pro. I question the accuracy of some of Con's sources, but overall sources are tied.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 5 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 Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason why I am voting for pro is because the right it is granted in our constitution and CON and not make many convincing arguments that made me think otherwise. Plus, CON's sources weren't as convincing. The statistics have proven with less control, less crime. If con Pro used Chicago's gun control as a great source and statement to this debate. PRO should reasons why it is important to own guns and CON just kept using celebrity quotes to prove his argument. I believe PRO swept this. Also, the conduct about messaging was false. He had asked me to check out this debate, which is an option you can do.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 5 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is blatantly ignorant of the fact that if someone wants to commit suicide, not having a gun won't stop them. Con also fails to realise that most guns used in crime are not bought by legal means. Con also fails to see that the 2nd applies to citizens not in the militia as ruled by the supreme court. And yes con, all those kids could have been killed with knives. Just go ask the guy in China who killed 21 kids in school with a knife the day after sandy hook.