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

Firearms regulation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anonymous 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: 10/3/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 204 times Debate No: 123128
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




According to shooting tracker, There is (at least) one mass shooting each day in the US. It's the worst frequency in the world, Except in war-torn countries. The US constitution stipulate that people have the right to own firearms, And that this right can't be removed; now, Despite the constitution, Would regulate the ownership of firearms be a good decision to take?
All points of view are welcome

(I speak english quite badly, So please no write too long arguments, Thanks)


No, It would not be, And there of many reasons why.
1. If we begin to remove things from the constitution, That would give many the idea that other things should be removed, Things that are the foundation of our country.
2. If a gun is fired on school grounds, It is considered a school shooting. Many people have committed suicide on abandoned school grounds, And it is counted as a school shooting. There have also been cases where a gun is misfired on school grounds, And it is also considered a school shooting.
3. These are law abiding citizens. Only a very small percentage of Americans use there guns for harming others, The rest use theirs for hunting and such. Most shootings are committed with handguns, Not automatics. So if you were to argue that you only wanted to take away automatics, Most shootings would STILL happen, So the only logical thing to do in that scenario would be to also take away handguns, Which is completely ridiculous because as I have said previously, Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
Debate Round No. 1


First precision: shooting trackers measures its numbers for mass shootings with at least four killed (but not only in schools).

I admit, Pave the way for many removals can weaken a country that has worked quite good up to now. So, I think it's difficult for me to imagine the American state of mind, But in France (I'm French), One person owns a handgun out of ten people, (and nearly nobody owns an automatic); and the statistics shows it clearly: there are much less shootings in France than in the USA.

You said most people don't use their guns for harming others, Of course it's true. But I'm still convinced restrict firearms owning is good, And I'll show you a little example. Most Americans are law abiding citizens, You said it. So according to your reasoning, What's the use of the police? I hope you're convinced of the usefulness of the police (and I think so), And surprised by my remarks; but it's the same: the police is necessary to protect us from a minority of criminals, And restricting firearms is in my opinion necessary to protect us from mass shootings, Even if most people use only their guns to hunt, Or keep their firearms to defend themselves if necessary (a person rarely manage to defend herself).
And the MASS shootings are not committed by handguns, Except in hostages takings; outside, The shots are comitted by automatics; and I never spoke about singles shootings which can be a mistake, A mass shooting can't be accidental.

For the constitution: here, The referendum is national : the president, Or the population (if one voter out of ten give his accord) can require a poll, And the result of this poll become a law. It's the only way to change the french constitution. Can law like this be a solution? (It's not the anarchy, We not had a referedum since 15 years).
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
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Anonymous 2 years ago
To Wosx90
Hello! I'm back, And ready to have another debate. First, I apologize for stopping the debate, Secondly, I propose you to start the second debate, This way, You'll be able to post the first argument, Each in turn.
I hope the next part of the debate will be interesting as well.
Posted by Anonymous 2 years ago
2lesfrenchies I"m sorry to hear that. I"ll still be posting my response for round 2, And I"d love to continue it further next week.
Posted by Anonymous 2 years ago
I'm sorry, But I will go in a place without the web. But I would be glad to continue this discussion with Wosx90 next week in an other debate; thanks for your civility and have made this debate very interessant for me and others.
Posted by Anonymous 2 years ago
In detail the 2nd Amendment allows the people to bear the weight of armament, And this burden cannot be infringed. The American United State Constitutional right allows the common defense to the general welfare.
The state of the union is that there are two sides and neither is working constructively towards maintaining American United State constitutional right
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.