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

should We Repeal the Second Amendment

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Catiedebates 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: 4/26/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 113188
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Guns kill innocent children every year we should take away them


Okay, welp, I gotta say, I disagree with you on that one. However, I would be glad to debate with you. So, I'll point out a few points so we debate focusedly. However, feel free to direct any quotes on me. Also, for any evidence, I leave a reference page at the bottom.

1. Why are some of the most gun-controlled cities the highest in murder rates? Some of the most gun controlled cities, such as Chicago, Detroit and New Jersey (as a state) and Alaska have the most violence of all, while other cities, like Plano or Kennesaw, which, by the way, has a murder rate so low it can be rounded down to ZERO (a). Now, correlation does not equal causation, but by looking furthur at how the crimes are commited, we can see that truly no one who actually wants to impose harm will stop when they don't have a legal gun. Finally, California has had severel mass shootings in GUN-FREE ZONES, like San Bernidino!

2. When will it stop? Okay, so you want to take away guns. But what about, more important leading causes of death? Vans have been used, like in the Toronto attack, and, while they may not be common, in your logic, we should ban cars, and I'm not even mentioning motor accidents. Then, some of the top accidental deaths include overweight and obesity, and yet the Left calls for fat acceptance! By simply pro advocating healthy habits, we could save 18% of the population, nearly 58,626,000 people, compared to the supposed number of people saved by controlling guns: 13,286. In your logic also, we should take away heights to prevent the common fall death, and pools, ovens, factories, and food (because of poisoning), which, by the way, are all more deadly yearly than firearm deaths (except for factory injuries). My question is, wouldn't you have to secure all of these things too? These parts are of our daily lives! (B)

3. Will it stop the violence? No. This is built off my previous fact. You see, as I alluded to earlier, if you take away a terrorist, an extremest, or mentally ill person, as they are responsible for the most firearm mass murders, will it stop them? No. Because, in the end, and sadly, there will always be loop holes. These consist of the black market, which by the way, would have an increase of profit if gun control happened, meaning that more people would join the illegal market, a few more examples, are cars, nearby pools, anything that can catch and make a fire, a high cliff AND a van, a plane, a homemade bomb, the list goes on and on and on. This would bring no change theoritically, because the behaviors we've seen in mass murderers, and even generel murderers alludes to this.

Overall, here is my final statement, opponent, gun control would fail at protecting or securing the American people. It would simply bring unneeded control, possibly even dangerous. However, I'd like to see what you have to say in response!

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
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Catiedebates 2 years ago
@backwardsden thank you and I think that you are 100 percent correct too
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
Repealing the 2nd Amendment will not change the Constitutional understanding of why a fire-arm is allowed. First by United States Constitution the voter who oppose the right created by any common defense to the general welfare should be making bid by offer of payment, compensation in which they are willing to offer fair value for the purchase of personal property, the property is known as a fire-arm, held by private citizens. We are outside any precedent set by slavery, and though this might be viewed as a clumsy effort by a limited public pressure towards Eminent domain. It is not set by explanation right in relationship of the many wrong.

Publicly we also now have an argument of equality, united state that every-one should be exposed to danger due to lack of ability, this lack of ability as idevigaual person, may or may not hold their own liberty with fire-arm. Fact of principle a group makes a claim that a fire-arm is not needed for a common defense and safety, yet learns by experience that they have in fact been wrong and have left themselves with others exposed to a danger and the regrettable forfeit of human life.

When represented the fear of irresponsible behavior, the public approval of theft regarding personal property, and a refusal to assume the burden of not only their own safety but the safety of others to which they interact. Compels them to break the law themselves and punish the innocent for the known crimes of the guilty. Failing to maintain a basic separation of people who commit crime and those who do not.
Posted by Matty_G454 2 years ago
Honestly the best solution is for america to make the laws more strict, taking away the second amendment could start another civil war and we don't need that. the problem is that its too easy for crazed people to get their hands on these killing machines. And to be brutally honest, the AR15 should be taken away from civilians because its not a home defense weapon, nor a hunting rifle, but a gun for war, plain and simple.
Posted by NerdiestNerder 2 years ago
By the way, @backwardseden, it's funny that you only mentioned vans, but completley skipped over all the other, bigger causes of death.
Posted by NerdiestNerder 2 years ago
Is this a joke? It just seems that you are sarcastic.
"guns kill children"- Yes, they do, in fact. To be exact, they kill 2373 children a year. However, let's compare that to some other deaths that children can die from...
(numbers of deaths in children yearly)
About 9131 = Cars
3044 = Poison, Drowning, Burning, Falls
Guns aren't even on the top list of child killers! Also, 60% of deaths by firearms are suicide, so why don't we try to fix that instead?
"Stupid reasoning. Nowhere close to, not even close to, guns. INVENTED EXCUSE. "we should ban cars", cars are NOT used here in this country to KILL people, not anywhere close as to what guns are. That entire thinking is wrong. Its a pathetic excuse." See, this is how I feel about your logic. You try to blame guns for everything, when it doesn't even COME CLOSE to drownings or car accidents. Besides, does it really matter what is used to kill people, and what does kill people? Car accidents and falls may not be purposeful, but they still kill much, much more than guns.
"He is correct , it won't stop the violence. But its a start."-But at what cost? Honestly, it won't stop much, but it will indeed bring so much more violence, and, as @Pro_Arguer helped, people theoretically wouldn't even stop. There are so much more productive starts than this.
"But regardless within 5 years or less, the second amendment WILL BE TORN to shreds"-Really? I doubt it. You see, politicians (at least the smart ones), don't just look at the news, and don't care about their feelings, because they care about the facts, and the cons. And those prove the gun control will only make the situation worse.
And, about the printing, you do realize they can make a separate law banning that, instead of banning all guns. I hope this is sarcastic, because your argument was propaganda, false, and absolutely hilarious.
Posted by Pro_Arguer 2 years ago
Taking away guns won't stop shootings. Did banning cocaine stop people from doing cocaine? Nope! And it will be the same for guns. Might as well have the good guys have guns too.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
@Catiedebates - Don't worry, You are absolutely 100% correct on this issue. The second amendment is a stupid issue and it should most defiantly should be repealed. You are also correct in stating that guns do kill children and for that very reason they should be taken away. You opponent gives absurd reasons which has nothing to do with the debate whatsoever.
"Why are some of the most gun-controlled cities the highest in murder rates?" Oh he means like Chicago where they are so understaffed that they are so stuck with their paperwork that the cops cannot be on the streets? AND there is no such a thing as "gun control". Is he serious?
"Vans have been used," Stupid reasoning. Nowhere close to, not even close to, guns. INVENTED EXCUSE. "we should ban cars", cars are NOT used here in this country to KILL people, not anywhere close as to what guns are. That entire thinking is wrong. Its a pathetic excuse.
He is correct , it won't stop the violence. But its a start. Getting rid of guns is the absolute 100% correct thing to do for so many reasons.
The kids on March 24 who marched across the world for better reform they did the right thing. And they don't want to get rid of guns, just reform.
But regardless within 5 years or less, the second amendment WILL BE TORN to shreds and perhaps, though maybe not, something will replace it. Why? Technology. Hey right now as an example 3D printer guns are being built in people's basements and there's 0 laws to stop them. Since there's none, what are people going to do when so so so many will be building them? Is law enforcement going to pound down every single door to see who is making them and who isn't? Also right now, of course bombs are being made, and I have a friends who knows ---everything--- about this stuff. Without a doubt people WILL be able to build bombs in their basements that can knock out entire city blocks within 5 years. Today's guns? They will be tinker toys and the second amendment will have no place
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.