frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Is gun ownership a right, for responsible adults?

Debate Information

I say yes. I believe responsible adults, have the right to buy and own a gun. i do not believe the government has the right to say otherwise. Self defense is a basic human right. The left is quick to talk about bodily choice, and while I agree that bodily choice is a human right, I disagree with their claim that gun ownership is not a right.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    While I don't think that guns should be outright banned, I think there are certain regulations that should be in place (many of which other gun owners would probably agree with)

    For example, safety regulations for manufacturers and design standards for the actual manufacture. Most states currently do not have these regulations, which means that anyone can build and sell "junk guns" that may be dangerous to the user more so than as defense. This also implies that a trusted manufacturer could produce faulty weapons with no repercussions. To me, this seems obvious because I don't want a gun that blows up in my hand.

    The other obvious safety protocol is to not give guns to known criminals and/or people who are psychological unstable, because they may present a danger to themselves or others.

    Ultimately, disarming the public would be to abandon faith in the American people and should not be done by the government.
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfensmoothie
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -  
    How do you define "responsible adults"? Who decides who is responsible and who is not?

    Anyone is free to buy a knife at a grocery store. A knife is a weapon that can, and sometimes has, lead to dozens casualties. Yet we do not expect knife buyers to be responsible in any way, and even a little kid can buy a knife. (I know in the UK they are trying to change that now, but the UK has always been behind the US in terms of individual liberties, and it is not a good example to emulate.)

    Anyone is also free to buy a composite bow (a very deadly weapon in the hands of a skilled archer), a katana (need I say more?), a pickup truck (can lead to untold amount of damage), a yacht (can wreak havoc in a port), a couch (can easily kill a few people if dropped from a high building in a crowded area)... No issues whatsoever.

    Similarly, anyone should be free to buy a gun, a tank, a nuke and whatever else. Let the market sort it out, as it does everything else that the corrupt hand of the collective does not touch.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987Blastcat
  • smoothiesmoothie 434 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    @MayCaesar I feel tanks and nukes are a little bit far.

    It doesn't make sense to me for a citizen to own THAT much killing power, able to mass murder millions in a matter of seconds with a nuke. That is far beyond the power of any handheld weapons. Tanks are also, extremely powerful and can overpower a civilian police force if it was able to fire, I would not feel safe if anybody could drive these things around.


    This is an example of a tank rampage WITHOUT the ability to fire.

    I believe gun ownership is enough to defend yourself in this country.

    PlaffelvohfenHappy_KillbotZombieguy1987
    why so serious?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    @smoothie

    Tanks are available for purchase in the US right now, albeit there are some regulations regarding your ability to drive an armed tank on public streets - but even an unarmed tank will allow you to easily take lives of hundreds people by running them over, before you can be subdued. Does not seem to lead to any issues, and I am not aware of more than several incidents of their misuse by the general public.

    The reason is, such expensive toys are too inefficient cost-wise, and if you have the kind of money to spend on your evil schemes sufficient to purchase a tank, you can find much more efficient methods to use that money by buying the most simple things that are not regulated. Go to any university chemistry lab, and you basically have a cheap factory of weapons of mass destruction at your fingertips. Does not mean we should outlaw chemistry or heavily regulate it though.
    Zombieguy1987Blastcat
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    The right to bear arms is about protecting yourself from invaders and potentially from corrupt or oppressive government. There is no reason why citizens would need nukes and tanks to do this.

    That being said, you more or less already can buy used military equipment from government suppliers, including tanks, but the cost is prohibitively expensive and the main gun has to be disabled, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
    smoothie
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • smoothiesmoothie 434 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    @MayCaesar Right, I forgot about tank ownership laws. You made some good points about the cost and the few amount of cases. However, I still believe them to be unnecessary in defense of a person which is why I believe in guns in the first place.

    With your "outlawing chemistry" take, obviously, you shouldn't because a nuke or weapon hasn't been made yet and the same chemicals are used for good purposes. It also takes a huge amount of material and skill to create nukes and weapons alike out of a university chemistry set. Maybe if we were all born mad-scientists with a bloodlust then they would be regulated further.

    As @Happy_Killbot said the main gun in a tank has to be disabled, is that against the second amendment?

    I don't really know of any good reasons to allow the marketing of prebuilt nukes or fully functioning tanks to the common population
    why so serious?
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    *****Anyone is free to buy a knife at a local grocery store

    It’s amazing how our  societies differ in my country it’s illegal to do so  ..........it is ILLGEAL to carry a knife of any size shape or form without due reason for carrying it at that time and in that location, this includes pen knives and Leatherman's with a blade on it.......

    We don’t have a problem with that it’s a societal norm just as gun ownership in the U S is
    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    @smoothie

    Well, one could argue that guns are unnecessary either; there are many different ways to defend oneself, and in the vast majority of cases simply having a good punch (quite easily achievable after a few months of boxing training with a good trainer) is more than enough - and the cases in which you actually have to pull out a gun to defend yourself almost always make it practically impossible for you to do so without getting shot yourself.

    In my view, the ability to wield guns and other weaponry has to do with more than just the ability to defend oneself from criminals. It is more about the general principle of individual freedoms, as well as the fact that citizens must be well armed and ready to overtake the government that has gotten out of line. For this purpose, they should have access to the same weaponry the government does. And if we are to outlaw, say, driving armed tanks by citizens, we would also need to outlaw driving armed tanks by government-employed soldiers. 
    This was the thinking of the Founding Fathers as well, who were more concerned with people's ability to rise up against the government in case it starts violating their freedoms, than with their ability to defend themselves. Of course, Founding Fathers are not supreme, and everyone is free to disagree with their values - but it is hard to argue with the fact that they thought their position through very well.

    Either if people never actually have to (I certainly hope they never have to) use this ability, the mere fact that it exists already keeps the government in check and makes the individual stronger and more confident. In my experience, people in countries where guns historically have been suppressed are much less willing to speak up against the government's violations. In the US we have a very rebellious society, criticising the government for everything, and it is largely a good thing, I would say.


    @Dee ;

    It is all about societal norms in general, I think. When you cross the road on foot at a busy day, in theory you are subjecting yourself to a very high risk of being injured - it only takes someone taking their foot off the brake pedal for a few seconds at the wrong moment to injure you, and it takes someone to not do anything at all and leave their cruise control on set at 55 mph to have a good chance of killing you - yet we do not even think about this risk when crossing a road, because the chances of this actually happening are very small. And the chances are small not because people are afraid of punishment for doing so, but because running pedestrians over is just not a societal norm here, or anywhere else for that matter.

    I would not want people to carry guns or knives around in a society that has not solved the problem of stochastic violence to a large extent, such as Russia, where I used to leave. I am pretty sure that, should gun ownership in Russia be allowed today, people will actually start shooting at each other regularly. I still support full gun ownership rights in principle, but in case of countries like Russia or Nigeria these rights probably should be introduced gradually, in order to avoid a lot of bloodshed. But in the developed world this problem is largely solved, and people mostly interact with each other peacefully, so we can afford these laws, so to speak.
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
     
    Very interesting piece , I guess if one grows up in a society like the U S it’s an accepted norm. It would be interesting  to see if the right to carry was introduced in Europe how it would effect society as in would the overall impact be positive or negative?

    Americans I meet over here ( I meet a lot ) seem fairly divided on the issue of guns as there are so many facets to gun ownership which leads to many questions on the issue.Its amusing when Americans see that our police force (mostly) do not carry guns , and the general population could not envisage such being a legal right , of course the total opposite is the case in the U S as like us it’s part of who Americans are as a people as in it’s accepted as such 
    Blastcat
  • A human right is basically addressing a person who has lost a United State constitutional right. One they are held in detention by a force of people, or two by person who does not maintain a united state constitution right.

    A law does not hold a united state as a majority does not create a united state under a liberty. A united state is created must be by republic under liberty, meaning a self-rule must be a guide that is used to for a unit. When under constitution the units are singled out first by basic principle, then with a legal history also at liberty. This removes the use of a law as guideline for direct judgment of creating a unit. All men are created equal by their creator. creator being the unit of male.  As all woman are created equal by their creator. The creator being the unit of female.

    Blastcat
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @MayCaesar

    *****Anyone is free to buy a knife at a local grocery store

    It’s amazing how our  societies differ in my country it’s illegal to do so  ..........it is ILLGEAL to carry a knife of any size shape or form without due reason for carrying it at that time and in that location, this includes pen knives and Leatherman's with a blade on it.......

    We don’t have a problem with that it’s a societal norm just as gun ownership in the U S is
    Self defense is a human right.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought

    ***** Self defense is a human right.

    Yes , and......?
    Blastcat
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @YeshuaBought

    ***** Self defense is a human right.

    Yes , and......?
    Gun ownership is self defense.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought

    **** Gun ownership is self defense.

    Yes for Americans it seems , I know this. I do not need nor have needed a gun then again I don’t live in America 
    Blastcat
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @YeshuaBought

    **** Gun ownership is self defense.

    Yes for Americans it seems , I know this. I do not need nor have needed a gun then again I don’t live in America 
    Human rights come from God, not government, and are universal. The government has few, if any rights, and does not have the right to dictate individual lives. The government is a collective, and the individual has more God given rights.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought

    **** Human rights come from God,

    Nonsense , I don’t believe in a god 

    ****not government,

    Human rights comes from Humans who decide these things 

     ****and are universal. 

    They’re not 

    ****The government has few, if any rights, and does not have the right to dictate individual lives

    Yet your government tell you may do and not do with your individual life 

    . ****The government is a collective, and the individual has more God given rights.

    They’re not god given , and has more rights than who?
    Blastcat
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @YeshuaBought

    **** Human rights come from God,

    Nonsense , I don’t believe in a god 

    ****not government,

    Human rights comes from Humans who decide these things 

     ****and are universal. 

    They’re not 

    ****The government has few, if any rights, and does not have the right to dictate individual lives

    Yet your government tell you may do and not do with your individual life 

    . ****The government is a collective, and the individual has more God given rights.

    They’re not god given , and has more rights than who?
    I don't care what you think or say, i care about my God given rights. I do believe in God, and I have the right to my beliefs. I am not government property, so I have the right to my liberty. I will never agree with you, so stop trying.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought

    ***** I don't care what you think or say

    So why are you giving me a lecture on rights?

    , ****i care about my God given rights. 

    Good for you 

    ****/I do believe in God, and I have the right to my beliefs. 

    Yep I agree 

    ****I am not government property, so I have the right to my liberty. I

    Yep totally agree 

    ****will never agree with you,

    I haven’t asked you once to agree with me

    ****so stop trying.

    Where did I try? You really like ranting don’t you?
    Blastcat
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  

    Gun ownership is a fundamental Constitutional right and I will not surrender my firearms to any government.

    Amendment II

    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.

    Blastcat
  • @RickeyD ;
    1. A right in bearing arms is a united state.
    2. A wrong in bearing arm is not a united state.
    3. An order to use lethal force is a united state.

    As a bearer of burden it is without doubt at some point an order may come from a state of govern which calls for a lay down of arm, or die. At which time many people may need to make a choice as to the common defense they wish to indicate as the arm they have brought to bear against others.  There will with great sorrow possibly come a time in anyone's life when they are governed to lay down an arm to serve a longer reach, be it by necessity, upon this union they will need to become part of a greater common defense to the general welfare.

    In basic the 2nd Amendment to basic principle and legal precedent of common defense to the general welfare said. If taking away something already common is right and not wrong, then a person does not need a law to force that issue. To be clear a United State must be held to qualify for liberties of constitutional united state.

    Blastcat
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    RickeyD said:

    Gun ownership is a fundamental Constitutional right and I will not surrender my firearms to any government.

    Amendment II

    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.

    Good, I support you. Where did I say otherwise?
  • RickeyD said:

    Gun ownership is a fundamental Constitutional right and I will not surrender my firearms to any government.

    Amendment II

    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.


    its a bad habit to call a constitutional right fundamental as any constitution should be basic as humanly possible. The issue of citing the 2nd amendment takes away any declaration of independence may by  preamble of American United State Constitution.
    If you agree with a group who is also armed this means you are subject to the arrangements that group create. A government first by law is to relieve any cost it helped create in a common defense.
    Blastcat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch