Return to CreateDebate.comosullivan8e • Join this debate community

osullivan8E


Debate Info

24
23
Guns should be allowed More restrictions on guns
Debate Score:47
Arguments:49
Total Votes:52
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Guns should be allowed (24)
 
 More restrictions on guns (25)

Debate Creator

MisterO(56) pic



2nd Amendment - Right to Bear Arms (Gun Laws)

Guns should be allowed

Side Score: 24
VS.

More restrictions on guns

Side Score: 23
1 point

Opening statement:

If everyone has a gun then the world would be safer? That sounds weird but it’s true because first of all…. Do guns kill people? No, people kill people and would you want some random person to come in your house and kill you with a gun? No, you would want to fight without guns. Letting people own guns will make everything easier because the person that owns the gun, can protect themselves from other people that try to kill him/her. Allowing to bear arms gives the people the symbol of freedom. It shows them that they can trust the Government and say what they want.It gives the person personal protection and makes them feel secure. It also can help them when a criminal is in their property and then take care of themselves. Gun Laws helps decrease chances of crime and homicides. People without guns, are daily killed by other people that do have guns.

Side: Guns should be allowed
1 point

Argument 1:

In 1979 it was shown that more than 32,000 people attempted to rape, 32% were actually committed. But sometimes when a women carries a gun, less than 4% of the attempted rapes were actually successful, proving that women carrying guns or other weapons are less likely to face the threat of rape.

Side: Guns should be allowed
1 point

When people get raped, it's usually not planned so they wouldn't really know. That's why people should always have guns to protect themselves, just in case something happens.

Side: Guns should be allowed
Alexandrat(6) Disputed
1 point

People might be getting raped but if the victim shoots the offender to death there is also criminal responsibility. In self defense dangerous weapons are not the only solution.

Side: More restrictions on guns
AndOzyigit(10) Disputed
1 point

Instead there are other ways you could handle this situation by calling the police because carrying or having any weapons at all risks you and puts you in danger.

Side: More restrictions on guns
1 point

You might say that people might kill the person without intending to do so, but if the criminal attempted to kill or hurt you, why can't you protect yourself by doing the same.

Side: Guns should be allowed
AndOzyigit(10) Disputed
1 point

Women living in a home with one or more guns were three times more likely to be murdered; for women who had been abused by their partner, their risk of being murdered rose fivefold if the partner owned a gun.

Side: More restrictions on guns
1 point

When a women has been raped, her emotional state becomes really bad and depressed.The women doesn't know what to do after this and still something bad might happen to her.This is why we need this amendment.The right to bear arms helps us feel safe and keeps us protected.

Side: Guns should be allowed
Alexandrat(6) Disputed
1 point

However she can use that gun a commit suicide due to her emotional state. That would show that there need to be checks on their mental health to ensure that they won't harm themselves or others.

Side: More restrictions on guns
AndOzyigit(10) Disputed
1 point

Nor did guns make the women safer; women who purchased guns were 50% more likely to be killed by an intimate partner. So LaPierre's "good woman with a gun" is actually, it seems, putting herself in danger.

Side: More restrictions on guns
1 point

Argument 2:

Taking away our right to own guns is actually useless because most of the people who actually intend to use the weapon to harm someone, is getting the gun illegally. If someone broke into my house, I would want the opportunity to be able to defend myself so that I could prevent the possibility of that person raping or seriously hurting me. Teens these days would want to buy guns to sometimes protect themselves from people but also they want to seem cool. As much as you want to restrict guns, you can’t because people always find ways to get guns.

Side: Guns should be allowed
1 point

To add on, you will find a lot of articles or stories, proving that people are getting guns illegally, so you can't do anything about it. Also, different people have different stories. So maybe it's not that good at home and you need protection. Or maybe you got raped once and you don't want it to happen again.

Side: Guns should be allowed
Alexandrat(6) Disputed
1 point

However with more restrictions there would be less murders and in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Adam Lanza didn't get his gun illegally he got it from his mom who got it legally for self defense. Dylan Roof also got his gun legally yet he still used it to kill those people.

Side: More restrictions on guns
1 point

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was one of deadliest shooting in grade school or high school yet the gun wasn't bought illegally.

Side: More restrictions on guns
FarazZ(10) Disputed
1 point

Adam Lanza's mom should have put it in a place where Adam wouldn't be able to find it.

Side: Guns should be allowed
AndOzyigit(10) Disputed
1 point

Guns have a curious psychological effect beyond this: a 2006 study by Dr Jennifer Klinesmith and colleagues showed men exposed to firearms before an experiment had much higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in aggressive behavior relative to the subjects not primed with a weapon.

Side: More restrictions on guns
FarazZ(10) Disputed
1 point

All of the men showed fire in a shooting range where they can relase their anger there but if these men havent killed anyone then its just anger that they can do at a shooting range.

Side: Guns should be allowed
AndOzyigit(10) Disputed
0 points

Guns have a curious psychological effect beyond this: a 2006 study by Dr Jennifer Klinesmith and colleagues showed men exposed to firearms before an experiment had much higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in aggressive behavior relative to the subjects not primed with a weapon.

Side: More restrictions on guns
AndOzyigit(10) Disputed
0 points

Guns have a curious psychological effect beyond this: a 2006 study by Dr Jennifer Klinesmith and colleagues showed men exposed to firearms before an experiment had much higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour relative to the subjects not primed with a weapon.

Side: More restrictions on guns
1 point

Argument 3:

Guns should be allowed because according to the article about the dad that bought a gun to protect his family, he had a burglary attack and the gun helped him. To add on, the man felt like he should protect his family and prevent anything serious to happen, so he used a gun to prove to the criminal that if he tries to attempt to hurt his family, then he will die. Also when you have restrictions then people want to get it even more because they feel like they’re more scandalous. If someone tells you that you shouldn't do something, some people think that if they do it, then they will achieve something, and they will feel very complete.

Side: Guns should be allowed
AndOzyigit(10) Disputed
1 point

While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception – it doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot.

Side: More restrictions on guns
FarazZ(10) Disputed
1 point

When the criminals see a gun, the want to fire first so the person doesn't shoot them back.

Side: Guns should be allowed
1 point

Therefore, this can be seen by the evidence provided that the right to bare arms should be allowed for these reasons. People should have the right to protect themselves and their families, just in case something happens that can get them killed or seriously injured. Also because when people have guns, they feel like they can protect themselves and that will make the situation safer. On another note, Schools should also have guns because just in case something happens, they would be prepared. Schools sometimes have lockdowns to practice just in case a shooting happens. But they should also show teachers how to protect their children if the shooter goes into the classroom. To wrap this up, people will get guns to protect themselves illegally because they’re not allowed them. People that have guns are less likely to be raped or get hurt.

Side: Guns should be allowed
1 point

People feel more scandalous when they get guns illegally and show off to their friends. When you put more and more restrictions to allow guns, people want them more.

Side: Guns should be allowed
1 point

This should also mean that people should also have a sense of feeling that they are safe and they can feel happy and know if something bad happens to them, they can take care of the problem.

Side: Guns should be allowed
AndOzyigit(10) Disputed
1 point

LaPierre's proclamation bears the hallmarks of a litany of misconceptions. Gun aficionados often frame the debate in terms of protection, but it is vital to realise that the vast majority of rape and murder victims are not harmed by nefarious strangers, but by people they know, and often love – friends, family members, lovers.

Side: More restrictions on guns
1 point

Opening Statement:

26,819, 13,286, 14,869, 372, 1,870, 475, 64 and 265. I'm not just stating random numbers, 26,819 people were injured by firearms, 13,286 were killed, there are 14,869 more gun stores than grocery stores in the US, 372 mass shootings, 1,870 people injured in those mass shootings, 475 killed, 64 school shootings and 265 kids accidentally shooting themselves or someone else with a gun, and all this has happened in only 1 year. If there were more restrictions on guns then maybe there wouldn’t be as many shootings or deaths.

Side: More restrictions on guns
1 point

Argument 1

The fact that right now in the US an ex convict or a mentally unstable person can go into a walmart and buy gun. It almost seems as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a coffee. Now isn’t that scary and irresponsible but we can make it better by imposing proper background checks that prohibit those who are not capable of handling such weapons have access to those weapons. These background checks must be comprehensive to ensure minimum mistakes. After all its peoples lives we are talking about so we need to be more careful. There need to be background checks and not just check if their had a criminal past, they should also check about their mental health. On June 17, 2015 Dylan Roof when into a church in Charleston where he killed nine African Americans, in a racially motivated attack. He used a gun from a gun store in Charleston, he had been arrested earlier the same year for drug possession and trespassing but he still was allowed to get the gun. If they had done a proper background check on him then he wouldn’t have been able to buy a gun. Even though my argument is logical and the right thing to do it wouldn’t find any takers in the US government since they have stopped taking background checks in the US off an executive order.

Side: More restrictions on guns
NayaK(11) Disputed
1 point

People all ages should have access to guns, because you never know when something could happen and that person wouldn't be prepared to protect themselves. I'm not saying that children should have guns, but people over the age of 16 should have access to guns. This is because young girls are getting raped everyday and they don't have any protection.

Side: Guns should be allowed
AndOzyigit(10) Disputed
1 point

People with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry any firearms.

Side: More restrictions on guns
NayaK(11) Disputed
1 point

You also might say that it is very simple to walk into Walmart, buy a gun and leave. But in some cases that might be helpful. People that want guns to protect themselves, might have had a history of being raped or seriously injured, so they would want to protect themselves. In an article about background checks in Walmart, an ex-Walmart employee said that the background checks take a lot of time. That proves that they do have background checks.

Side: More restrictions on guns
zarab(6) Disputed
1 point

You say that people above the ages of 16 should be allowed to have a gun to protect themselves, but what if they bring it to school? In 1975 a 16 year old got a gun to school and he shot and killed a teacher and 13 other students before killing himself. That clearly shows that people even when they're 16 years old or older can still harm others and not always use it for protection.

Side: More restrictions on guns
1 point

Argument 2:

Former Navy reservist Aaron Alexis, 34, killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard, near the U.S. Capitol. He was killed in a shootout with police. Alexis was employed at the base by a military subcontractor. The fact that someone from the military has no proper gun restrictions is crazy. The military, as well as the citizens, should both have gun restrictions that allow the person to have only one gun that is empty and only usable if having a proper license. After all, if the military can't control themselves, how can the citizens? A proper license should be required to owning a gun as well as having only one empty gun. This is only one shooting that I have used. On an average day, 93 Americans are killed with guns. I'm not making these numbers up and are totally legit. The fact is if that many Americans are killed every day, what is to say it's not you next?

Side: More restrictions on guns
NayaK(11) Disputed
1 point

You said that he was killed by a police officer, that just proves that he got killed by guns. Also, if you're in the military, of course you need a gun. Some soldiers are responsible for different things. Maybe they're in charge for crossing the border and a person crossed illegally, he can shoot the tires to stop him. And of course you are not making those numbers up, but think about it, if people had guns, there would be less people getting killed.

Side: Guns should be allowed
1 point

Argument 3:

On average year more than 12,000 people are killed using firearms. Families might keep guns to keep them safe but if the child gets the hold of the gun what would happen.265 kid have been involved with firearms and where do they get the firearms from? Their parents. And if a child takes a hold of that gun, he can either accidentally hurt someone or purposely. For example an 8 year old child found a loaded rifle in his family shed and he took it outside during a game of cops and robbers, and fired it at another boy. While the kid did live no one wants that to happen to another kid or their own.

Side: More restrictions on guns
1 point

Rates of firearm injury death increase rapidly after age 12. And unintentional shootings of children and teens are underreported in the CDC data, possibly because of the difficulty of characterizing a child’s intent after he or she has killed himself or a playmate with a firearm. Everytown tracks unintentional shootings involving children, which occur every 34 hours, on average

Side: More restrictions on guns
NayaK(11) Disputed
1 point

You are saying that people are unintentionally killing people? If you are too young then you shouldn't have a gun, but like I said before, people at the age of 16 or higher should. To add on, you disputed my argument incorrectly because you said incorrect information that I said. I said that people should have guns at the age of 16 or higher, and you're saying that they should have it at the age of 12?

Side: Guns should be allowed
NayaK(11) Disputed
1 point

As I said before for the 3rd time, the parents should not let kids use guns. That is the parent's fault. Also, parents should teach teenagers how to use guns for future references.

Side: Guns should be allowed
AndOzyigit(10) Disputed
1 point

But if the parent doesn't have a proper license for a gun, there should be no guns in the first place.

Side: More restrictions on guns
1 point

To conclude there should be way more restrictions on guns due to the reasons that we just stated. It would be safer and better for everyone, people should be able to go out into their driveways without having the fear that the would get shot. Which is why there should be more restrictions.

Side: More restrictions on guns