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

gun rights

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,742 times Debate No: 18875
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




Alright, first off guns lower crime. It has been proven multiple times, especially with England, Australia, and well the rest of Europe. Also if you American it is in print in constitution. So, that being said, there are benefits for guns, and its my legal rights!


First I would like to thank my opponent for the challenge and good luck!
them moving onto my arguments my opponent is talking about how gun rights are protected by the constitution but if you look at the 2nd amendment states "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." so lets dissect the wording of the amendment first looking at "a well regulated" which is pretty self explanatory in that its talks about regulation which gives the state (government) the ablillity to regulate who can own guns and who cannot. secondly the phrase "necessary to the security of a free state" which is about that the right to bear arms is in order to protect the country not that who ever wants a gun can get a gun. so when you look at the wording of the second amendment it states that the people can own guns only if it is to protect the country (and seems unlikely when you look at it now but in 1776 it seems more justified) to protect the country and the government has the ablillity to regulate who can own and who cannot own a gun

Secondly the amount of gun related violence in the United States alone according to the NRA guns are the second leading cause of unnatural death in Americans age 15 to 24 and since 1960 more than one million Americans died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional accidents. in 2003 alone 16,907 died from suicide, 11,920 dies from firearm homicide, 730 unintentional shootings, and over 100 firearm deaths from an unknown circumstance which shows that there is too much gun violence in the United States that is not protecting the government and therefore those guns are not constitutionally protected

so in conclusion the wording of the second amendment being that people can own guns to protect the country and the government can regulate who can and cannot own a firearm and with the large amount of crime just in the American border not to mention the middle east with the revolts and al-queda all the way from Brazil to Mexico and there drug war so the large amount of guns around the world has increased crime and all of the violence is not legally justified.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok so the problem with the second amendment is the phrase " a well regulated militia". this its a tricky spot for both of us. Depending on how you interpret this, it can go both ways. The debate is between if militia mans private ownership, or government ownership.

If you approach this as a grammarian you see: "shall not be infringed". So this means this is protecting a right that is supposed to be already in place. The amendment recognizes the right, but doesn't spell it out on you lap. In the 19th century, the supreme court said that he right to keep and bear arms is independent of the Constitution. Keep mind, these people are law geniuses. But it is still the militia phrase people ponder about. You say it doesn't apply saying it means a army or national guard. This is possible, I will not deny it, but the founding fathers were conservative like me. So it is fairly absurd hey would say this. They like guns, we won a war vs. England with guns, without them e would have been toast. They think we need guns to fight the government IF not when IF the government wants to take control like England. Its against their political ideology t be against guns. So you militia doubts are against their beliefs, which can not hold up logically. James Madison said " right to the people" in his amendment. Sounds clear to me. If he meant states or Military why not say so.

No the crime here is some proof hat you wrong. The book more guns less crime says that more concealed weapons make less crime. yes because in the poor areas of Chicago, were the strictest gun laws are, have higher crime rates then lets say Texas. Here is some statistics when Washington D.C. passed the trigger lock law: After its passing murder was 73% higher then before it was passed, and after it was repealed, while the average murder rate was 11% lower. here are some graphs about England and after their bans were passed. Here is another graph about the Chicago law: I'm sorry for the links i can't copy the graphs over. this shows number of murders with guns after the Chicago ban. OK murder rates of Florida after conceal carry allowance: This I think proves my point.


though my opponents last argument they talk about how the supreme court ruled that the right to bear arms is independent of the bill of rights but if you look to the pro's first speech in the first round their last sentence states " So, that being said, there are benefits for guns, and its my legal rights!" and looking at that we can only assume that they are referring to the bill of rights and therefore my opponent in contradicting themselves by agreeing by the supreme court by saying that it is independent from the bill of rights after they state that the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. furthermore my opponent had nothing to say against my observations of the the wording of the 2nd amendment and since they had the opportunity to provide a counter definition and did not we have to use the definition that I gave. so yes our founding fathers loved guns it is what won this country we call the USA but my point about the 2nd amendment talking about having guns to protect our country still stance.

Secondly when you look at the links that my opponent provided, you will see that all of their articles are from and after looking into the legitimacy of this source and after meer minutes of research I have found out that their researcher does have an collage education but that is in engineering and therefore my opponents source is unreliable with the subject that we are debating about. and when you look at the graphs that my opponent provide it shows that after the gun laws were enacted there was a drop in gun related crime, so then why does the gun related crime increase? well that answer is that the American public is using guns not to protect themselves but to harm other people. so with my opponent's source not reliable and not to mention that my opponents graphs all agree with my arguments that the crime is not being regulated and that the guns are being used not to protect the country but to harm eachother.

so in conclusion my opponent has contradicted themselves as well as using an unreliable source, my opponent has unaffectedly refused my arguments and therefore I am winning this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


Ok, this means nothing it is reliable. Jon R Lott has only economics degrees but he has the highest rated pro gun book in the world, and it is quote reliable. Lott called almost every district in the country to see their crime rates, and these graphs are really similar to Lotts. You and I probably don't have degrees in this either yet we are talking about it in great detail. Plus non of your sources are cited. Also ma I add that the site has other sites cited on this page. here's one of them, highly reputable. Another one look yes it says Yale. yes it says Washington post, also reputable. and thats says Senate! Our own government so have fun beating Yale scholars or the government.


First I do enjoy the debating but the comments at the end of your last speech is uncalled for and unappreciated so thank you for not doing that.

secondly if you refer to my first speech I did site my sources that being the NRA so the claim that I did not site sources is my opponent not understanding what has been said.

third the sources that my opponent reposted were better sources but they all say the same thing that there has been a drop in the amount of gun related violence and then there is an upsurge but like I have stated before that the gun violence is not the public protecting itself but the public hurting the public and with the defining points of the 2nd amendment which my opponent agrees upon my point is still relevant and is still a point that my opponent has failed to argue in now two rounds

and finally my opponent has completely dropped their argument of the supreme court ruling that the right to bear arms is independent to the the bill of rights which shows that my opponent has given up in this debate because they have not been able to effectively argue either for their points or against mine clearly shows that I am again winning this debate
Debate Round No. 3


Further more my last comment was reasonable because if you can claim my resources are bad ( which they aren't ) then I believe its fair to say 'face the facts' in other words.

secondly: I have not dropped the supreme court ruling, and if you want me to argue then i will. Here is something from the Washington post: it shows the legal rights to guns.

I am still debating, you can debate on the defensive you know. further more yes you cited one thing, that didn't prove a point. You need numbers that show differences in statistics aka crime going up or down. So i am showing visual proof. Oh and speak about non debating your claiming you won and its not over until it's over. Further more you are doing similar things that you accuse of. You are debating defensively like me in round 3, the only difference is that you aren't using facts to disable my argument, a.k.a like

Now i will say something else, When guns where illegalized murder did go down 3%. That's an O.K. improvement. But Robbery rose by approximately 50%, and unarmed robbery by 36%. Here is more proof that the English have a higher crime rate :

Now argue that all my resources are reputable, and the facts are clear to my eyes, but this differs from person to person. Please vote pro.


in my opponents last speech he claims that he has not dropped the supreme court argument but if you look at the last 3 rounds the only time my opponent talks about the supreme court is when I mention it in my third round speech

second thought I have only used one source I have only needed one source to make my point that all of the crime that is gun related is not justified by the second amendment, not to mention that the definitions of the 2nd amendment was agreed upon by both parties, so in my opponents first speech when he states that "guns lower crime" I have shown that the crime is not under the second amendment and therefore I have won the argument that the second amendment will lower the amount of gun related violence.

third however much "visual proof" that my opponent provides I have been able to show and prove for now 3 rounds that the crime is not justified by the 2nd amendment because the gun related violence that claimed the lives of 1 million Americans (which can be found in my first speech and is cited) is not protecting the country from a forgien invader or the government

so in conclusion I have won this debate for the reason that my opponent in his last 3 speeches has done nothing to argue his point further than posting links to unreliable sources and others while I have shown time and time again that all of the evidence that my opponent has provided that is credible, strengthens my arguments by using the definition of the 2nd amendment that we both agree upon and the statistics that I have cited shows that my opponent has dropped all of his arguments as well as his inability to argue my points clearly shows that I have won all of my arguments so therefore I have won this debate THANK YOU!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
Posted by darris321 7 years ago
The conduct was good on both sides.
It annoys me that the pro side did not just point out that the second amendment also says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The first part is clearly a preamble to show the spirit of the law, but since the right of the people shall not be infringed, the right of the people shall not be infringed.
It was an interesting debate outside of just that second amendment bit.
Posted by 16kadams 7 years ago
thanks it was my first.
Posted by reconsqurl 7 years ago
you too good debate and good luck in the future
Posted by 16kadams 7 years ago
good debate i had fun see you later.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 7 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote-bomb Crypto.
Vote Placed by Crypto247 7 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is already wrong.
Vote Placed by imabench 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I am on the fence for gun rights, and after this debate I still am. both sides occaisonally got sidetracked and towards the end most of the rounds were simply showing how the other said something contradictory. However the Pro did state how in the constitution people had a right to bare arms and the Con did offer evidence against that, but to me it wasnt convincing enough. Pro also used more sources so i gave him that too. All in all this was an ok debate but it could have been better