CreateDebate


Debate Info

85
54
For Against
Debate Score:139
Arguments:58
Total Votes:198
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For (31)
 
 Against (29)

Debate Creator

bahhumbug(5) pic



Gun-Rights

Alternitive History Debate on Gun Rights. Pick a side (for or against) and participate in the debate. You are graded on quality of comments and use of the tools on the website. Good luck {#emotions_dlg.smile}

 

NOTE: THIS IS A DEBATE FOR A HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY CLASS AND IF YOU ARE NOT  IN IT PLEASE TAKE YOUR IDEAS TO ANOTHER PLACES INSTEAD OF INTERRUPTING WITH OUR EXERCISE. YOU WILL BE BANNED SO DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON AN  ACTIVITY BASED DEBATE LIKE THIS.

THANK YOU.

For

Side Score: 85
VS.

Against

Side Score: 54
5 points

People need the right of defense, safty, a gun. People argue that it will just put guns in the wrong hands, but arent they already? Really will makeing it Illegal do anything? I think not, because its not Guns that kills people, its people. The gun wont kill you without someone behind it, not all people have the right reasons for haveing a gun, but does that mean people who do have the right reasons will be punished and left unarmed, and defensless?

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
3 points

You go to school everyday with the requirement to not bare arms and do you honestly feel defenseless? 84% of americans havent taken one safety course on guns so its a threat to anyone, behind and infront of the gun. In alot of gun injuries, the user is harmed too. Guns should be left in trained haneds and with all the other types of defense methods, guns should not be the defult.

Side: Against
DaddyTang14(6) Disputed
1 point

It's not that hard to learn how to use a gun. I'm 15, and in just 3 hours, when I was 12 years old, I learned how to safely use a rifle, pistol, and shotgun.

Why can we trust the people LIKE US in the military with automatic weapons, tanks, and explosives to defend our own country but we can't trust ourselves to defend our own lives?

I do, however, agree with the fact anyone willing to buy a gun should take some kind of safety course or such, and we should make it a law.

Side: For
5 points

one needs the right of self defense, one needs the right to feel safe in any circumstance. Yet one also needs to know self restraint, such weapons as a ALL assault weapons should not be allowed, but a hunting rifle and pistols should be allowed.

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
3 points

With all the other types of self defenise available and the many more being created, i dont think something as barbaric as a good should be the "fall back defensive."

Side: Against
Demitius(12) Disputed
4 points

do you mean a gun should not be the fall back defensive???

The gun is a weapon made for the peasents, for those soldiers who couldnt take years to train. Of all the other weapons in the world the gun is the most efficient for self defense, taking little training and thought to use. Are you saying a knife would work better when the majority of Americans dont even know how to use a knife??? They would end up cutting themselves let alone their assaulters. If one had a gun, a single warning shot in the air will make them run before the need of killing. however one still needs to have the killing intent or they will be attacked and be in a tausle for the gun.

Side: For
4 points

Yo. Law abiding citizens should be allowed to have guns, not convicted criminals. If someone plans to buy a gun, the shop owner should have to do a background check on the customer. That way, law abiding citizens can be the ones with guns, that they'll only use for protection against intruders. I mean, come on. If you think that gun control will help this country, you are sorely mistaken. Criminals aren't stupid. They'll keep their guns while the law-abiding citizens while fork 'em over to the government. I think you see where I'm going with this. Every citizen law abiding citizen has the right to bear arms.

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
2 points

Even if a background check is preformed and comes out clean, most americans have no history of gun safety. Also, though americans may be "law abiding" they still are animals and have natural reactions, there is NO human alive that hasnt been startled before or scared. Its those feelings that provoke gun use as a defense in the first place. If you want defense against intruders, try a home alarm system, a loud barking dog will even warn you without killing someone. If you want to stop someone, use another form of defense like a taser. Some people may say, but what if they have a gun? If there was gun control, that couldnt be the case, yes there will always be violent people, but without guns there would be less dead people. At school no one has a gun, its just how it is, and in the cases where one was entered into the environment, there was a set plan to stay safe and the deaths are obviously lower from that event, then they would be if guns were aloud daily. Guns make room for emotional mistakes and kill the need for restraint.

I do think gun control will help this country and i am not mistaken. If criminals keep their guns, they wont be able to use them. Why? People if no one had a gun in an area and one single shot was heard, the whole area would be on alert for that one shot and the gun would get confiscated. In countries like great britan where there is strict gun control, this happens all the time. If we just assume its useless cause we have some criminals and just have to bare arms to balance it out then its just twice as dangerous, two lefts don't make a right.

Anyone that is considered a "criminal" is on record by the US government and will be searched before the citizens for that reason. The government is smart enough to realize that criminals would have guns, its not something thats just overlooked.

Side: Against
4 points

I think that people should be able to have guns because they might need them to protect themselves if they live in a bad neighborhood and it is in the bill of rights.

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
2 points

The bill of rights does not state the an individual citizen has their own right to have their own gun, id read up on that before making that statement. People who live in a bad neighbor hood can move, or live in a protected shelter if moving is not an option. People who consider a neighborhood unsafe often think so because of guns. I myself often think "someones gonna come out and shoot me" when walking through bad neighborhoods. If citizens didn't have guns, that would make everyone feel that much safer. In unsafe neighborhoods, there would be one less worry of not getting hurt by some irresponsible citizen with a gun.

Side: Against
Republican2(351) Disputed
1 point

Even if guns were banned, things wouldn't really be much safer. The people committing gun crimes are usually not getting them legitimately in the first place. People cannot be expected to "move" every time they perceive a potential threat. Banning guns is not the answer.

Side: For
4 points

i think if people are responsible they should be able to buy and use firarms. but theres some people who use them for the wrong reason and that is what makes little familys cry because there loved one was gunned down by a horable person ;(((((((((((

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
2 points

Your side sounds more "against gun control". Responsible people, in my opinion, are the ones who have been trained and are armed with guns under government authorization. Which is quite rarely an average american citizen. You state, "but theres some people who use them for the wrong reason and that is what makes little familys cry because there loved one was gunned down by a horable person ;(((((((((((". That quote is much more for the "against side" and hurts your arugment

Side: Against
yachy101(26) Banned
4 points

Right to bear arms- second amendment of the constitution. weapons are used for many reasons these days. some use weapons for sport some use them for looks some use them for fun. although some people have killed people with guns also we shouldnt take our constitutional rights away do to a few mentally psychotic or duranged people

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
1 point

First of all its not in the constitution itself, its simply an amendment, i think you should read about what your talking about before you go and time up and argument on it.

Here is the a the direct quote

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.

In oder for the state to be secure we cannot have deadly weapons used for looks like they are some new type of hot wheels made for fun and looks. Your constitutional right is to keep and bare arms, not guns, and for the safety of the state and all in it we need to take away simple dangers for citizens, cause eventually we need to stop playing with hot wheels and grow up.

Side: Against
3 points

people have rights. this is a free country. we have the right to defend ourselves, but guns should come with a rule book. just my oppinion tho.

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
2 points

Guns dont need a rule book, people need to be trained in what they are using and most citizen have never taken a gun safety course. People do have rights but they should not have the right to end someones life because they were scared the MIGHT loose their own, and thats the self defense argument. If you wanna feel safe there are so many less barbaric and deadly options then a gun. We are humans, not deer. If you pepper spray and tase an intruder, what more can they do? They cant see or move...so they cant shoot you and they are still alive. We do have a free country, we should make it safe too.

Side: Against
3 points

Brad, just because the Criminals may be more prepared and we might not have the time to grab our gun that doesnt mean that guns shouldnt be alowed, all your saying is based on circumstances, and luck

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
1 point

This comment should be under brads statement, but to dispute. Timing may just be a statement but the guns are still the main focus. Guns shouldnt be allow because the defenders want to shoot just as much as the intruders. I think i covered this in more detail when i explained the pros of having citizens being gun free.

Even "If criminals keep their guns",(if we were to confiscate all guns) " they wont be able to use them. If no one had a gun in an area and one single shot was heard, the whole area would be on alert for that one shot and the gun would get confiscated. In countries like great britan where there is strict gun control, this happens all the time.

If we just assume its useless cause we have some criminals and just have to bare arms to balance it out then its just twice as dangerous, two lefts don't make a right.

Anyone that is considered a "criminal" is on record by the US government and will be searched before the citizens for that reason. The government is smart enough to realize that criminals would have guns, its not something thats just overlooked."

Side: Against
3 points

People should have the right to bear arms. If guns were to be banned, people would still have them in their homes and on the streets. Its just how things work. Some people say that taking away the right to bear arms will decrease crime rate, but when the righs is taken away, more damage will be done due to lack of self defense. We dont want that !

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
1 point

I feel like im repeating myself. But to simplify what ive been saying, if the government had gun control they would start out with the high risk people such as criminals and work their way down. Not having guns would be an overall safer environment. A common environment like this is school. Some people argue that there are still school shootings and this is true and also related to your idea of "its just how things work." While their are school shooting they are vary rare, just like america would be if we didnt have guns. Schools also are prepared, remember doing those lock down drills? Our country would prepare us the same way. School shootings cause far less deaths then if schools were aloud on a daily bases to everyone (like america now). We should leave guns to the professionals and if we need to feel safe, we should protect ourselves without killing someone else.

Side: Against
2 points

The statement of "Guns kill people, Guns kill children" is false guns dont kill people, people kill people.Guns should be aloud everywere GUNS ARE GOOD.

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
0 points

This comment should be under the comment instead of on the "arguments for" side. This side is for your individual comments, as to debate with you, guns should not be aloud in the hands of citizens because it is the gun that kills the people, the person.

If the person was responsible, you could take the gun out of the situation and someone would still die, this is not true. The gun is what is directly taking the human life. To say that quote is false is just commonly statisticly untrue, as stated in my argument Against; "For example, during a year when over 5,000 teens and children died from gun wounds in the USA, in Great Britain, where gun ownership is very restricted, 19 teens and children died from gun wounds."

Side: Against
2 points

I posted this on a similar debate and i believe it clearly shows my views:

I agree that one should have the right to own arms but i do not believe on has to use violence to obtain their wildest gun dreams. if one wants to own a gun i have no qualms with them but if they wish to own guns such as a AK47 and AK74u they should be dealt with in a more civilized manner to protect the people. A hunting rifle is fine, a pistol is fine, an automatic or assault rifle is over doing it specially since the only reason an American needs a gun such as a rifle is for hunting. I am not saying all guns are for hunting a pistol may be used for self defense, But only as a Deterrence to violence.

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
3 points

Although its not your idea, i think its still well formed. My dispute is that hunting and other recreational guns should be stored safely in the place where the recreation is taking place. For example, hunting guns should be stored under lock and key at those hunting grounds, then checked out and returned as not to take them home cause harm to non-deer life like humans.

As for the topic of self defense, guns should not be used as a common self defense. Why?

Lets use a simple example, your walking home in the dark its quite and you think someones following you so have your hand on the gun and keep walking, looking back. Suddenly a car pulls in front of you, startled you naturally turn around and shoot. Theirs no one behind you, but an innocent dead driver in front of you.

Its simple "accidents" like these account for most deaths. Having something less likely to kill a person, such as a taser, is much safer. Some people may argue that it doesnt do enough damage to defend somone, but taserd stop your muscles from moving, stopping whoever right in their tracks, alive. We should stop using guns for defense like we do, nothing that deadly should be so self conscious.

Side: Against
2 points

Guns rights is in a pretty good position right now. You can own a gun, if proven trustworthy. This is not the case in all states, but it is in most. Some argue that it is dangerous to be giving out guns, but with guns-rights or no gun-rights criminals will still have guns. However, the average person who wants to own a gun for self-defense will be prohibited to without guns-rights. Meanwhile, with gun-rights the average person can own a gun AND protect himself against criminals.

Side: For
dacey(1046) Banned
0 points

Although I'm against guns, what you are saying is absolutely correct.As far as Americas majority of people who do want gun rights, they are in a pretty good position.As i said in my first argument, my husband is all for guns and is one of those affected by Australia's recent gun laws. My hubby "wishes he had your gun rights America, so be grateful"....Personally i think its the reason behind half your problems... however my hubby,(in this moment i am typing) just rebutted me by saying that in Switzerland, they encourage, that all their citizens have a gun.

Side: Against
2 points

We have to look outside the box. Criminals WILL ABSOLUTLEY get a hold of guns whether there is a law banning firearms or not. If you don't believe in guns, then don't buy a damn gun. If you feel safe in your home without a gun, then don't buy a damn gun. If you feel safe walking amongst thieves and murderers with just a can of pepper spray, then....say it with it me.....Don't buy a damn gun. Me? I like the idea that if I have the CHOICE, I could LETHALLY defend me or a loved one. I don't know about you, but I live outside the box. On the outside we don't live in a perfect world where there isn't crime and violence. I'm not a trigger happy fellow either as you might paint us gun rights enthusiasts. I dread the thought of the day I might have to take the life of another human being. You know what though?.....It could be mine that's taken from me if I fail to protect myself. If everyone carried a firearm on them, everywhere they went..... you think Home Invasions, Theft or Murders would occur quite as often? I don't believe so. Half the scum bags would be dead. Take away our weapons.... and you give criminals the chance to flourish.

Side: For
1 point

the general public should be able to posses guns for self defense and safety. i agree that there should be some restrictions like if you are a convicted felon you are not aloud to posses a gun. but a citizen trying to protect himself should be able to have a gun. some may say that crime happens because of guns. guns don't kill people, people do. but even if guns were outlawed the criminals would find illegal guns and would find other ways to harm people. all people shouldn't have they're safety taken away just because of what criminals decide to do with the guns.

Side: For
ungernick28(21) Disputed Banned
2 points

guns have no purpose other then killing. i do not think all guns should be banned, but definitely some. if you like to hunt, then go out and buy a hunting rifle. however i believe guns such as AK-47's serve no purpose. they are machine guns, and you do not need a machine gun to hunt a deer. as for self defense, well there are plenty of things you can do before resorting to a gun for defense. you could move to a place with a lower crime rate. buy a taser or pepper spray. get an alarm or guard dog. besides, what would you need a gun for to defend yourself? if it is against a robber then i should let you know that most robberies occur when you are away from home, making the gun pointless.

Side: Against
Republican2(351) Disputed
1 point

Guns serve a useful purpose in self defense because they reduce the amount of money and strain on the court system to imprison the offender. Dead people can't waste government resources.

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
2 points

The about 80% of the "general public" dont even know a thing about gun safety. Although i agree that criminals should not possess guns, at least most of them know how to use it. Citizens trying to protect themselves should use something that wont kill people with a flick of a finger. Pepper spray can blind, tasers will stop someone wherever they stand, guns click and kill.

I said this in jacobs dispute, but if people were the ones killing people then it wouldnt matter if there was a gun involved.

Umm heres a visual

Person+Gun= -Person

(A person with a gun kills a person)

Take out the gun cause your saying its not its fault...

Person=-Person

If the gun wasnt responsible, and its the persons fault, then it wouldnt matter if the gun was there or not. But infact it makes quite the difference.

Your point about criminals finding illegal guns is just like illegal guns, something just cant be completely erased. But saying outlawing them would make gun rate increase cause they are illegal makes no logical sense. Take a place like school, we have no guns here, and in cases where shootings happen, its much less then i would be if people had guns everyday. Same goes for a biggerscale like the USA. We also have all been trained with the lock down drill, and im certain the government would issue something like that as well.

The people behind the guns "defending" themselves are just as trigger happy as any intruder. To just say guns should be aloud because criminals have them, is childish and we need to age past barbaric murder caused by guns.

Side: Against
dacey(1046) Banned
1 point

ohhhhhblooodyhell, Hours later me and me hubby are still debating this and its really starting to shit me....he is really starting to change my mind... someone please gimme a gun...;)

Side: For

I bet the people against guns are for the killing of babies...

Side: For
0 points

ya brad if the people that the robbers were gonna take hostage have guns they can show them whats up

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
1 point

This comment should be under brads comment instead of on the "arguments for" side.

Side: Against
1 point

I think that the statement of "Guns kill people. Guns kill children" is totally true. But people try and tell you that its the person that uses the gun to kill that people and the children or they could have a mental disease that makes them do it and then later they don't understand what they did. Wrong. I think that if somebody is mental, they should even get a gun. I feel that only police and other people in that group of upper class people like that should be the only ones with guns and weapons like that. Well what about the defense of people? What if you get robbed and he has a weapon (not a gun) and you have nothing to defend yourself because of this law. Well that sucks (: No with less guns getting robbed shouldn't be a big deal... Use a frying pan or something to protect yourself or better yet call the cops. But guns do kill people and children, yes it is fair that police and upper class or that enforcement get guns (they need them and use them for a purpose). THE RIGHTS FOR GUN SHOULD BE LIMITED FOR THE PEOPLE THAT USE THEM FOR THE BAD REASONS AND GIVE THEM TO THE PEOPLE THAT USE THEM FOR GOOD REASONS TO HELP AND SAVE PEOPLES LIVES (:

Side: Against
dacey(1046) Disputed Banned
1 point

Guns are bad period. Dont assume that "the upperclass" are any less capable of using them in a corrupted fashion.Remember human nature is human nature. No-one is exempt from human nature.Time has proved again and again Anyone is capable of snapping.

Side: Against
1 point

We should protect gun laws because of crazy people who go out of control with them and guns these days are getting more advanced and easier to get

Crazy gun
Side: Against
wolfbite(431) Disputed Banned
1 point

That person does not look crazy at all, he appears to be a person who happens to like guns and is responsible enough to go to a shooting range.

By taking away guns from the average citizen you are only allowing the criminals easy access seeing as they will not give up their guns.

Side: For
1 point

People abuse gun rights to rob places and take hostages. people say that you need guns to protect yourself but do you really have time to find your gun if you are taken hostage. usualy the people commiting the crime are more prepared and ready to strike

Robbers
Side: Against
wolfbite(431) Disputed Banned
3 points

Psst, criminals don't plan on following gun laws, so banning guns will not prevent robberies or crimes.

Side: For
shaneyam99(112) Disputed
1 point

if you need to take the "time to find your gun if you are taken hostage" i surely hope you do not have a gun and more importantly have anyone who would do something bad if they found it.

Side: For
1 point

Student News Daily offers lots of policial stamensts about popular topic today. In a chart compairing Conservitive and Liberal views, there was the following quote; "The Second Amendment gives no individual the right to own a gun, but allows the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Guns kill people. Guns kill children."

For example, during a year when over 5,000 teens and children died from gun wounds in the USA, in Great Britain, where gun ownership is very restricted, 19 teens and children died from gun wounds. This is very blunt statistic proof that states that gun control thats rectricted to certian personal keep citizens safe and reduces the death by guns.

With society and technology proggressing at such a fast speed, the need for barbaric uses of protections such as guns is not nessicary. Guns can be unpredictable and almost 84% of americans have not been trained in gun safety. With the uses of modern day technoloy for individual protection, gun control should only be restriced to select forces of the goverment who are trained in using these weapons.

A huge part of american culture is film, and if you were to ask people if violence and special effects involiving guns and other firing weapons were nessicary to a good film, one out of two would say yes. This point gets even more drastic then a 50/50 when i comes to videos games, once you past rated "E" there it is almost impossible to find a game with no use of guns. Taking gun use as a "game" only provokes the wrong use of these weapons and teaches the brian that guns can be an "easy way or" or a "simple defense". Not only do adults play games, so do children. My 11 year old brother is a avid player of the new first person shooter Modern Warfare2. This game is fast paced and above all violent, take a look in the video below.

Modern Warefare may ahve the rating M but its very common for children to play these games. Some may argue that these "train to be future military member" but how does jamming down the "x" button until 2 in the moring make you a good soilder in training? Simple anwser, it doesn't. We cannot have guns in the same enviorment as play. Teaching people that firing a gun gives you points is not what they should know. Firing that gun kills another human being and will haunt you for the rest of your life.

Infact you may have heard about how many soilders who come back from the war suffer from many phycological issues that in many cases cannot be completely cured.

We should leave the guns to the people who need to use them. We as citizens need to be protected, not be armed. To keep the country both mentally and physically safe, we need to keep reality and virtual gaming seperate to keep are country togather. We need to restrict gun control.

ModernWarfare2
Side: Against
Houston(186) Disputed
1 point

Can you please give me a link to where you found your statistics? They are so interesting I somewhat doubt them (no offense.) By the way, Modern Warfare 2 teaches tactics.

Side: For
1 point

I think that we should all have the right to own a gun because most people use then for protection or hunting so we should and people that dont use then for that reason might just have then to just have then

Side: Against
1 point

"Guns are needed for self defense." Ive heard this so many times reading peoples pro-gun-rights stories, so to start of this argument against such a childish idea, let me give you a real and recent example.

Saturday, October 10, 2009,

Associated Press

"Right now everything points to a tragic accident," Police Chief Kevin Brunelle told The Associated Press, adding investigators were awaiting forensic results.

John Tabutt, 62, told investigators he got his gun when he thought he heard an intruder, then fired at a figure in the hallway, according to Brunelle. It was Tabutt's live-in fiancee, 62-year-old Nancy Dinsmore, who family members say he was going to marry Saturday. Tabutt told authorities he thought she was next to him in bed the whole time."

-

At this time please click the link at the bottom of this page and view the news video of the tragic 911 call. If you dont want to view the video, dont bother reading this.

-

Its traumatic accidents like that, that prove why using guns for defense, is dangerous no matter what. If that man had just tased the "intruder" they could still be alive and happily married. Some people may call this a one time accident, but people think of guns almost by default as necessary to self-defense. Infact all of the people "for" gun-rights used that idea and phrased it as the only way. But in no way is something as deadly as that gun, the only way.

Our school is a gun free environment, or better phrased, has gun control. Do students feel safe? Yes, because guns are not allowed so the fear of being shot is alot less. Could a gun be entered into a school? Yes but if it was fired, we have designated lockdown drills we have practiced and one schools shooting kills lots less then if we were to have guns everyday.

Think of america as an environment with guns available everyday. Imagine how many lives would be taken due to anger or other temporary emotional disabilities.

We cant keep amusing the worst of everyone around us. "They have guns, so we need guns as well to protect ourselves." Two wrongs like in that statement do not make a right. If everyone had gun control, wed have a "school" type of environment and while "schools shootings" or gun use in a gun-controlled setting would still occur, its much, much less then if we were all having guns on ourselves as "Defense".

We have come to a time when technology and idealisms are advancing, so should our policy on gun control. Self defense should just keep one safe, not kill off other humans. Innocent ones like a wife to be, or a robber who is just down on his luck. They are fellow humans, we shouldn't even get the change to flick and finger and fire a bullet at them. Especially when something as common as pepper spray and your pet rottweiler could keep you safer.

Supporting Evidence: 911 Call (a.abcnews.com)
Side: Against
wolfbite(431) Disputed Banned
1 point

So your argument against people owning guns is that since some people might make stupid mistakes then it is okay to punish everyone?

With that logic we might as well ban cars because some people will get in wrecks from being bad drivers, ban alcohol because some people drink too much, and ban kitchen utensils because some people stab themselves.

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
1 point

This is a high school debate, for a history class, anyone not in it like yourself is banned and anyone else floating in here and reading this don't bother typing you are not a high school student and need to find something else to busy yourself with that interrupting out education activity.

Thank you

Side: Against
NeverShine(39) Disputed Banned
1 point

You shouldn't use your schools " gun-free enviroment" as an argument. It doesn't hold much weight. When I was in school... do you know how many drug deals I saw take place in my school (and took place in...-snicker-)? Did you also know my school was (still is) a drug-free enviroment? It's quite amusing actually.....what comforts people's minds. It's the simple things. You can paint the world whatever color you want. It's still a cruel world. It's still full of thieves and murderers. You can make yourself as vulnerable as you want. I'll make myself as protected as I can.

Side: For
bahhumbug(5) Disputed
1 point

I recommend you get sober or take a happy pill and stop debating with high schoolers who can form better thoughts then you.

Side: Against
1 point

"guns kill people" that is wat we have to remember. I mean NOONE should have a gun. That enforces that people kill one anouther.

Side: Against
MKIced(2482) Disputed Banned
1 point

Guns play a huge role in intimidation as well. If I am strapped for cash and decide that the only way to make any money would be to rob somebody, I think I'd rather rob a store without a gun than a store with a gun. They can be used for bad things, but legal guns are typically used for good or for protection from illegal guns.

Side: For
dtrimble(31) Disputed
1 point

ok then.

So do cars, trains, boats, planes, stoves, showers, bathtubs, ....uh wait a sec...did you mean that people can use guns to kill people?

My bad!

Side: For
1 point

Edit: Sorry, I just seen the Note on this debate. I'm not part of the class you speak of. I understand if you wish to delete this response.

This was a hard one for me. I own a gun...lol. And I still think people should be allowed to have a gun. Yet, I don't think people really have the "right" to own one. Not according to the Constitution.

"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."

Most people are NOT a part of the Militia...lol. Not unless you are in the National Guard. Even if you stretched the meaning to include those that could be drafted into the National Guard during an emergency you still would be cutting out a HUGE chunk of the population. Women would probably be excluded as well as those men under and over a certain age limit.

So, do I think people should be ALLOWED to have guns? Yes.

Do I think everyone has the right... or should be given the right? No.

Side: Against

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.

The gun violence in America is an American Shame!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015

Side: Against
0 points

Guns are very easy to get and anyone can use them to kill people.

Side: Against
0 points

people kill people, but guns make it a heck of a lot easier. i do not think all guns should be banned, but some should. if you like to hunt, and you want to kill a deer, then go out and by a hunting rifle. however, certain guns are overkill such as AK-47's. i do not think you need a machine gun to kill a deer. you may say that guns could be used for personal protection, however i think buying a gun for that reason is stupid and paranoid because there are so many other things you can do before resorting to a gun for protection. you could move to a place with a lower crime rate, or by a taser/ pepper spray. you could get a guard dog, but the main idea is that there is little purpose for guns other than their use for killing, and that is why i am against gun rights.

Side: Against