CreateDebate


Debate Info

33
14
No It shouldn't Yes It should
Debate Score:47
Arguments:25
Total Votes:53
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No It shouldn't (17)
 
 Yes It should (8)

Debate Creator

marcos(74) pic



Should the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution be revoked?

2nd Admendment : Right for the people to keep and bear arms. In my opinion, it was good in the beginning for people to protect and defend themselves, but now this has caused an increase in violence. Or if you say that we should keep it, whould we put restrictions on what type of fire arms we should allow to the public?

No It shouldn't

Side Score: 33
VS.

Yes It should

Side Score: 14
4 points

This idea that gun rights increases violence is a bit unfounded.

Some studies used against gun have been ones showing that over 50% of homicides in the US are committed with guns, while in countries with gun bans or very strict gun control have a lower amount of gun homicides. HOWEVER, just because a violent crime is done with a gun doesn't mean the guns being legal have CAUSED the homicide.

Some Social Psychologists try to point to the idea that guns remove a bit of intimacy from killing another human being, which has some truth to it. It is far harder to stab a person to death than shoot them if you are not the killing type.

So what does the data suggest about gun control? According to justthefacts.org, guns are heavily used in areas that allow them. HOWEVER, gun bans and restrictions do not reduce homicide rates. They lower the percentage done by guns, but violent crime rates have spiked heavily in DC, Britain, and Chicago after enacting gun restrictions and bans.

As for allowing citizens to carry a firearm, Florida had a significant decrease in murder rates, while Texas and Michigan had a minor decrease.

Despite the facts, some still try to argue for gun control or tight restrictions, including the idea that guns lead to fatal accidents. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the amount of accidents outweigh the amount of defenses. In fact, fatal gun accidents only account for about .5% of the total fatal accidents in the United States. This is something to greatly consider especially since the US is greatly criticized for having generally laxed gun laws.

The Second Amendment itself was put in place not just to have the citizens to defend themselves when government can't, but to keep the population armed and dangerous in case the government ever overstepped its bounds. The Founding Fathers never dreamed of a Utopia where violence would no longer be necessary. In fact, they figured that it would be very necessary at times.

"The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson

Side: No It shouldn't
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
2 points

"The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson NO IT DOES NOT!

Look at more civilized countries like UK and Japan no weapons no killings.

"Founding fathers" lived centuries ago, in age when rifle was the only available weapon. Now the law is obsolete.

Side: Yes It should
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
4 points

You've responded to none of my post.

----------------------------------------------------------

Side: No It shouldn't
2 points

There has been a lot of blood shed in the history of the developments of the English and Japanese governments. I don't know where you got the idea there wasn't any blood shed in the formation of those countries.

Side: No It shouldn't

If anything, the increase in violence is due to the the incessant gun control laws, and the lack of protection in the 2nd Amendment. All signs point to the increase of government reliance on security rather than private protection.

When guns are taken out of the hands of private citizens and increased power granted to the government, police state and tyrants always ensue.

Side: No It shouldn't

Revoked completely? No, certainly not. But in reality the 2nd Amendment already doesn't live up to its terms: not everyone can get a firearm and not all firearms are allowed. I think that having restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, like we already do, is the best possible way to regulate it while still allowing people the freedom to own weapons.

Making owning a gun illegal will not deter someone prepared to use a gun illegally to kill someone. It might make them harder to acquire, but there's already nothing you cant get on the black market, so all you'd really be doing in revoking the 2nd is unbalance the playing field by allowing criminals to have guns but not the law abiding citizens upon whom they prey.

Side: No It shouldn't
3 points

Guns should be able to be used in ways of self defense and in hunting

Side: No It shouldn't

Absolutely not! The vast majority of gun violence in America is caused by people who have guns illegally and punishing people who choose to have them legally is not going to stop the violence. Maybe if we actually punished the criminals for their choices we could discourage bad behavior, just a thought.

Side: No It shouldn't

I ahve a shooty mcbangingstick pump action 20 gauge and i like making thing go boom... kinda.... i actualy havn' really shot other than the first day i got it... ow i have finger cramps too much debating goodbey cruel computer...

Side: No It shouldn't
1 point

No it shoudnt because Americans need a way to protect themselves from their enemies.

Side: No It shouldn't
1 point

Every one who thinks the 2nd amendment should be remove are retarded we need guns for protection food hunting sport and everything else I mean it is just stupid how people think they should be changed. when that amendment was written they only had muskets but the were state of the art of that time so they intended for people to own these type of weapons and all guns

Side: No It shouldn't
1 point

All I gotta say is that this is complete BS, the need to use because they have them that's what the range is for.

Side: No It shouldn't
1 point

Absolutely not! The vast majority of gun violence in America is caused by people who have guns illegally and punishing people who choose to have them legally is not going to stop the violence. Maybe if we actually punished the criminals for their choices we could discourage bad behavior, just a thought.

Side: No It shouldn't
1 point

If anything, the increase in violence is due to the the incessant gun control laws, and the lack of protection in the 2nd Amendment. All signs point to the increase of government reliance on security rather than private protection.

When guns are taken out of the hands of private citizens and increased power granted to the government, police state and tyrants always ensue.

Side: No It shouldn't
3 points

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution should be revoked because many people have these guns in their possession and many use it as a means of settling a situation. Also, guns inplicate the need to use it, same as people who smoke and have cigarrettes in their possession feel the need to smoke. Lastly, in today's world, why should a gun be brought into a situation? The moment the trigger is pulled, someone's life can be taken away.

Side: Yes It should
KingBlack(223) Disputed
2 points

All I gotta say is that this is complete BS, the need to use because they have them that's what the range is for.

Side: No It shouldn't
LordChallen(184) Disputed
0 points

You have a point. People might have a pack of smokes on hand and in a time of need use them. Likewise, someone might have a gun on hand and should someone breaks into his/her home the gun might be used. Just like the cigarette, the gun would fill a need.

Guns don't have to take a life. Warning shots have solved wars. The reason a country has a nuke is not to use it but rather to create a sense of "don't mess with me or I will ruin your day."

There is an old concept that is a very effective deterrent. It's called Assured Mutual Destruction, (AMD). Basically, you might get me, but I'll get you too. Guns create this effect. Someone might bring a gun into a crowded place but if that person knew that say 10% of the people had guns, he/she would look for a different target.

Soft targets are more responsible for murder and death then guns. A killer goes in a house with a knife, why, because he has profiled the place and has assumed that the person would not have a gun. Maybe not even a knife, but some sleeping agent.

Cars and "legal drugs" kill far more people then guns. And often with intent, but usually when someone is murdered with a car the victim isn't in a car but on foot. Again, the issue is the soft target. More rarely, when someone kills with a car, they don't risk hitting a moving car, because of AMD.

About 50% of people killed with guns do it themselves. There are many people that are to scared to kill themselves so they do what is a called, "Suicide By Cop" (SBC). Basically, they get a gun and challenge a cop and is killed by police acting in self-defense. Another point that isn't taken in consideration in the stats that I've seen is that guns are used in self-defense but it still goes down as "gun violence."

There are dogs that can be deadly. Cars. Drugs. Icy Sidewalks. Ski Slopes. Swimming. Sun Tanning. Beer drinking. Lighting farts on Fire. Heaters. Extension Cords. Bicycles. Hot Dogs. Hot Wheels. Band Camp. . . . actually, that was something else. Going to work in high towers.

My point is: Life is a dangerous. The point of guns isn't to kill others as much as it to defend self. Women don't carry guns in their purse because they "want" to kill someone, but rather they don't want someone to "kill them."

And lastly. People die everyday for different reasons. All people die eventually. Some will die early because they were not prepared.

I live my live in such a way that when I'm done, I don't want to blame anyone. My rule is: It's not what happens to me that is important, but rather how I respond. This way, I don't rely on luck to stay alive. I wear non-slip shoes. I drive a full time 4x4. And I don't have a gun anymore. . . . . I got rid of it when I left the desert and moved to the city. I have a child and it makes me nervous to have a gun in the house. But my daughter is cute, so when she turns 16, I'll teach her how and when to use one.

Side: No It shouldn't
2 points

Do I think that it should be repealed? No Should it be amended? Yes. While I am not a hunter, I understand the necessity for some people to do that for food, and in lieu of some better system, it keeps population under control to prevent spread of disease. BUT, there is no reason in today's society for the average person to have assault weapons and even handguns in their homes. The 2nd Amendment talks about a well regulated militia, are you part of a militia? no, you're not. Are you well regulated?(this includes being trained and maintained) No, probably not. Do you understand that the protection was originally intended for the types of weapons that were not used in the military, so that hunters and the like could still hunt? The type of militia they spoke of was basically the national guard of its time. If you are in the guard, great, good for you, if not then you are just waiting for an accident to happen, or waiting for your opportunity to hurt someone else, either way you are wrong.

Side: Yes It should
1 point

The fact of the matter is...stupid people shouldn't be able to have guns. And the very fact that those of us of ~superior~ intelligence can now PRINT GUNS, using 3D printers...well shit, let's disarm all the lessers! LOL

It's a matter of natural selection as I see it...the intellectually INFERIOR will have no guns...and those of us of technical superiority...well, we can use 3D printers to make as many guns as we like! :D

PS - To people like me...at this point, with today's technology... yeah... your little "rules" and "laws" mean pretty much next to SHIT!

Freedom, TRUE freedom, is nothing more than intellectual superiority over others . ^__^

Side: Yes It should
LordChallen(184) Disputed
1 point

Superior? Intellectual superiority over others? TRUE freedom?

People like you? How does today's technology make you better then us?

Beside. . . . I read once, "stupid people call people stupid."

Side: No It shouldn't
Onideus(2) Disputed
1 point

Wow...just...WOW! Seriously, my post pretty well just saaaaailed on over yer lil head, didn't it? That 'ol Stupid Train...just kept runnin over ya, didn't it? Runnin over ya! LOL I guess my incredibly OBVIOUS cynical sarcasm was just not ~quite~ earth shatteringly obvious ~enough~, huh Sparkles?

Tha'fawk...they sure are breeding you kids SLOW these days! You be sure and have fun trying to "debate" something which has been made totally irrelevant by modern technology! :D

"Gun Control"...LOL, you trainables might as well be arguing for EARTHQUAKE CONTROL! AHA HA HA HA HA HA! You don't ~control~ earthquakes, you PREPARE for them! Herpity derp!

Side: Yes It should

There is too much gun violence in America. The Second Amendment should be revoked.

Side: Yes It should