Instigator / Pro

Resolved: All people should have the right to own guns.


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Contender / Con

This debate is the resolution. Kritiks are allowed from the negative. As the affirmative, I won't kritik the resolution. All definitions and framing will be laid out in the first aff speech, but since it's in a speech and not the description, you can debate the framing and definitions as unfair, wrong, etc. Lastly, no new arguments in the last speech for either side.

Round 1

First, we have to understand rights in a realistic sense,and this means rights with restrictions. Touse the United States as an example, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute as there is restrictions in regards to child pornography. To look at the second amendment for a more contextual example, felons and the mentally ill cannot own weapons, as well as fully automatic weapons are banned. This means that any argument about a reasoning for guns to be bad has to be backed something that is a legal reality, not something that is some random abstraction absent realistic restrictions on weapons.

Second, this logic does cross apply to the idea of “All People” having the right to own guns. If there are restrictions on this right,then as long as every person could be able at some part of their life to own weapons, then they have the right to own weapons. Another great example is how the second amendment of the United States says, “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” yet can still restrict what people have access to weapons through age restrictions among other things. Once again, if my opponent wants to make an argument about some group of people would gain access to guns that shouldn’t have them, they’d once again have to prove some empiric examples.


Guns Lower Crime Rates

Combining all property and violent crimes constituted 8,129,485 crimes in the year of 2019 in the US. Guns prevent 2.5 million crimes a year in the US. This means that we would see a 30.75% increase in crime without allowing open gun ownership. If we are to impact these crimes outside of the on-face violence that property and violent crimes have to offer, we can see how much damage these crimes can actually create.

It’s estimated that all of the costs of crime combined equal $1.7 trillion in the US. This means that a 30.75% increase would result in a $523 billion dollar increase to the US. These costs provide an economic incentive to allow gun sales so that taxpayers, victims, and society as a whole isn’t having to pay these costs if it’s not necessary.

Looking past the economic costs of crime, we can also look at more hierarchical forms of violence that are created through crime. There are 192,500 cases of sexual abuse stopped by guns every year in the US. Sexualviolence can lead to a multitude of psychological, emotional, and physical impacts including depression, PTSD, self-harm, panic attacks, and suicide among others. This unique form of violence is a tremendous impact on its own in a single case but compounded 192,500 times makes it truly an impact to deal with.

Another point that strengthens this is the fact that gun bans only harm citizens that would hope to defend themselves. 90% of firearms in possession of a criminal in 2016 were illegally obtained. This means that there is only chance to harm citizens at the benefit of criminals.

The Gun Industry

As a separate economic point, it is important to understand that the gun industry is responsible for 300,000 jobs and $15 billion in wages in the United States. This means that countries that don’t allow most citizens to have guns, such as North Korea where they are straight up banned, could see an economic boost from expanded gun rights.

Food Sustainability

The US has cut commercial beef production 5.4% leading to higher beef prices. On top of this, the same source cites a 79% public acceptance of hunting, which is 5% higher than the usual average. We also see 13.7 million hunters in the US and 7 million in the EU. These numbers, all steadily growing, shows that a large source of food for people can be wildgame. With 10.5%of the US population food insecure before the COVID pandemic, there is definitely an incentive to expand food access, which results in lower prices. This Increases access to food, and due to the existence of agricultural subsidies, no economic downturn.

Political Uprising

Another reason gun ownership is so important is the ability to politically uprise against a tyrannical government. While this might seem like a libertarian dream, it is more of a necessary reality than would be thought. All Forms of oppression have been challenged by an armed public.
For example, in the “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League,” written by Marx and Engels, they’re quoted as saying "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." This shows that the founding theory of leftist theory knew that an armed proletariat was necessary to overthrow the bourgeois.

To look past communist theory, however, we can cite the US second amendment “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is how a people who were the victim of extraction colonization from the British were able to fight back against the colonizer. This could be similar model for how countries today could successfully fight back from Eurocentric orEastern-centric colonization of the global South. USSR and US invasions in the Middle East and multiple proxy wars over North Africa, Southeast Asia and the Middle East show that without some sort of mobilized effort, global colonizers will continuously control other populations.

Lastly, an armed group of people have a realistic chance at stopping domestic government atrocities. For example, the Uyghur genocide in the Xinjiang province of China, a fight for democracy in Hong Kong, and BLM protests demanding justice for police brutality. Historic examples of armed militia groups being able to fight back includes the Arab Springs, Caribbean Slave uprisings, and the Black Panthers effect on the civil rights movement.

Let us begin.

Kritik of the Framework

The description specifically allows this. The Framework is being critiqued, instead of the resolution itself, due to the fact that if not more, the constructive stance that Con holds is as critical of the resolution as Pro.

Let's first take a look at the key points of Pro's framework.

  1. The term "Rights" should be understood in a realistic sense and there are limits as to what "Gun rights" mean, such as limits to felons and ill-minded people as well as the banning of automatic MGs
  2. The resolution means that every single person, at any point of their life, should be able to bear arms, and Gun rights for the people can still exist even if there are age restrictions
For the first time(or IDK how many times), Pro hasn't defined anything to an academic sense or via an academic source. He told me to understand "right" in a realistic and civil sense but doesn't define what it is in any academic source. So, if any academic source disagrees with his interpretation, the academic definition stands.

The Merriam-Webster definition that fits the best with the current context is used down here[1]. Criticism of it must be valid in order for it to be replaced.
something to which one has a just claim: such as
a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
b(1): the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural
(2)rights plural the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature
In summary,
  • According to Pro, every single person should be justly entitled to owning firearms
Not to mention, his interpretation itself has ruled out crime-committers and mentally disabled people from owning guns, and they are people too.

The second statement is just plain absurd. All people, as long as they can own guns at some point in their life? This would rule out these examples.
  • A child that died at age 9
  • A child that is born mentally disabled
Pro's interpretation alone has proven that he(please correct pronoun if incorrect) thinks crime-committers, mentally-ill people and children cannot responsibly utilize guns, and there are examples in which ensures that they cannot be able to have guns according to Pro in the entirety of their life. In short, It is impossible to prove that all people should have guns, as Pro would either prove that there are no children that died before being an adult or children that became mentally ill before being an adult; or even more absurd, if Pro is going to prove that none of those 3 groups currently have any active members.

This is on top of that the interpretation itself is incorrect. According to the presented set of logic, "All lives matter" means that the police can torture minorities as long as everyone mattered for at least one moment of their life, and "All people wear masks" would mean if I wear a mask 1 time, I would have done enough measures for the virus. With any degree of common sense, "All people should have the right to own guns" means that infants, criminals as well as disabled people should be able to own guns at all times. If Pro critiques that interpretation, No, we need to think the term "all" with a realistic sense too, which is for all people, at all times.

The reliable definition(that can be remotely-related to the context), for example, agrees with that "All people should be able to own guns" means Every single person(no restrictions) without time restrictions(for all the time).
  • the whole amount, quantity, or extent of
  • as much as possible
  • every member or individual component of
  • the whole number or sum of
  • Every
  • Any whatever
I could well define it as "Nothing but" and argue that no organism other than humans could own guns, but that is besides the point.


With all that critiquing Pro's framework, we arrive at that Pro's interpretation of the resolution, according to academic definition of "All", is self-refuting and impossible to prove, as Pro openly denied the gun rights of several groups, such as criminals, mentally-ill people and children.

Criminals using guns would lead to unnecessary deaths and violence as they tend to have a twisted mind focused on harming some people and causing pain on society. That is common sense. Law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves reduces gun crimes, but it is common sense that if criminals ever got hold of a gun, he/she/they could cause violence with it, the opposite effect of what law-abiding citizens would do with them.

Same with mentally-ill people. If they can't even have the right sense of when to use a gun and when not to use a gun, then obviously they can't be trusted to be with one as they could just cause unnecessary damage to society.

Children too. Many children can't even use a gun properly and they aren't developed enough to be trusted with guns[3]. They can't be trusted with a gun. None of the three are justly entitled to guns, so according to the definition of All, Pro fails at proving the resolution unless he proves that those 3 groups either don't exist or definitely can be trusted with a gun.

I rest my case.

P1: The resolution ensures that every single person, at all times, should be able to own guns without restrictions when interpreted with academic and realistic definition
P2: Some groups are not to be trusted with a gun, as a result they should not be able to own guns
C1: As a result, the resolution is proven false.

Round 2
BOP Analysis

As a microanalysis on top, you as the judge should vote that the resolution is proved true, not if I disprove every single disadvantage, but if the implementation of the resolution is better than the status quo. This means that if Con wins one disadvantage, but that doesn’t outweigh the Pro case, you should still vote Pro.


First on the framework/kritik. The first argument is thatrights need to be understood realistically and with restriction. My opponent ignores all of this, including a law review on constitutional rights in the US,to simply say there is no academic definition. While there wasn’t any definition, I am going to cross apply the law review as a reason that my opponent’s definition is not contextual and too simplified. The definition usedis a Merriam-Webster dictionary that doesn’t take into account the complex lattice of legalistic interpretations around it. What this means is that you can apply my opponent’s definition, but only if you put it through the realistic legal lens that rights will have restrictions with them. Unless my opponent has specific analysis on why the powers or privileges one is justly entitled wouldn’t have restrictions, then don’t buy that it won’t.

On the second point, I agree that it is absurd, so kick that point. We can still filter the debate through the first point of the framework,and it will serve the same purpose. However, I will answer the offense that we need to take “all” into a realistic context, we would specifically use the definition my opponent gave. There are six separate definitions my opponent gives, and the most realistic one to use in the legal context of rights is “as much as possible”. This means that “as much as possible” would be anyone who isn’t restricted through law.

As a bit of an under view, my opponent’s definition of rights doesn’t specifically say there isn’t legal restrictions, so my analysisthat rights have legal restrictions are upheld as a preemptive answer unless my opponent can prove that any specific argument has empirical backing. On the argument of all, specifically cross apply the specific definition “as much as possible”, which would be anyone who isn’t restricted.

Pro Case

Extend everything as dropped, including 2.5 million crimes being prevented including 192,500 cases of sexual abuse, $523 billion dollars that would be harmed to the economy, 300,000 jobs, $15 billion in wages, food accessibility expanding, and combating state violence as all the reasons guns are good. With the entire affirmative case unanswered, this all is weighing against Con’s Case.

Con Case

Before I get into the line by line, extend the entire ProCase as outweighing the entire Con Case. Especially with no numbers on how much harm would happen if criminals, mentally ill, and children got access to guns,then we need to extend that all of the impacts solved for in the Pro Case Outweighs easily. Onto the line by line.


First, extend the first point, or only remaining point, ofthe framework as a reason to say that criminals would be restricted from owning guns since there isn’t any empirical example of a legal system that allows criminals to have access to guns.

Second, extend the last point of the crime contention of the Pro case as a reason that crime is not a factor. Criminals already circumvent gun laws, so the only question is if we want to stop all the crime that I show is prevented (2.5 million crimes including 192,500 cases of sexualabuse totaling $523 billion dollars of damage) to happen.

Mentally Ill

First, extend the first point, or only remaining point, ofthe framework as a reason to say that the mentally ill would be restricted from owning guns since there isn’t any empirical example of a legal system that allows the mentally ill to have access to guns.

Second, extend the last point of the crime contention of the Pro case and show that it’s really easy to circumvent gun laws, meaning that if the mentally ill want guns, they’ll be able to get access and harm society. This means the only solvency is allowing law abiding citizens to have weapons to defend themselves.

Third, mentally ill people are not a harm to others, but only there self. While this might seem just as bad, the same source outlines that blaming gun violence on the mentally ill, and by extension gun laws, might do nothing but stop someone from seeking psychiatric help. Laws restricting those with mental illness would do nothing but stop people, for example the 30% of estimated Vietnam veterans, 12% of Gulf War veterans, and 11%-20% Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom veterans with PTSD,from seeking help for fear of losing access to guns. This, combined with the previous point, means the only affect gun bans actually have is creating public stigma and making the mentally ill scared of getting treatment.


First, extend the first point, or only remaining point, ofthe framework as a reason to say that children would be restricted from owning guns since there isn’t any empirical example of a legal system that allows children to have access to guns.

Second, extend the last point of the crime contention of the Pro case and show that it’s really easy to circumvent gun laws, meaning that if children want guns, they’ll be able to get access to guns. My opponent doesn’t have an impact for this point, but whatever it is, it’ll happen anyways.
Same story, Stuck in school, Unable to have my computer, Using my phone.

Criticism on the Critique of the Kritik 

The critique of the Kritik, imposed my my gun-advocating opponent, includes these points.

  • Rights have restrictions on them realistically
  • “As much as possible”

This is where the trouble begins for Pro. The entire proposition was based on something that wasn’t realistic to begin with, granting as many people gun rights as possible. Knowing that children can still have the ability to utilize firearms[1], as well as that numerous criminals have been using guns irresponsibly, it is certainly possible for them to own guns. As they are people, they are to get gun rights indefinitely as long as they exist, especially since Pro conceded that the “Once-in-a-lifetime” rule is absurd and should not be considered realistic.

The restrictions placed alone goes against the proposed resolution. If one says that “all people should be able to own guns” then restricts some people from using guns, such as infants and/or criminals in order for it to seem realistic at all, then is it really giving All people the right of guns? This is the same logic with “Women should get the same rights as men do”, but since men can do stuff such as entering Boy Scouts, it would mean that women would be able to freely enter Boy Scouts, which absolutely doesn’t make sense.

That is absurd, isn’t it? In the end, the “Equality Rights” for women would only include enough rights for women so that it is considered fair in and by the society, but not the rights that wouldn’t make logical sense for women to have, such as being able to enter an all-male school. In this case, the law that made women equal to men wouldn’t just give the exact same rights. It would give women rights that make sense and are fair. In this case, it is not “Women should be able to have the same rights as men”, it is “Women should be seen as Equal to men, and be granted rights that would make it true”.

In this case, the proposition Pro is arguing for is “All people that can be seen as responsible enough to own guns should be able to have the rights to own guns”. This proposition excludes criminals and children from owning guns, but the current resolution, “All people should have the rights to own guns”, is too wide, and it would grant children and criminals gun rights, knowing both can operate guns(thus possible). When you start interpreting the latter in a realistic sense, it becomes the former and ceases to be itself.

So in conclusion, what Pro did was merely to shift the goalpost and made the resolution something it is not.

Moreover, since Pro failed to define “gun”, by the definition[2], any law-abiding sane adult can have RPG launchers and Heavy MGs under their name if so. Interpret in a realistic sense? Remember this debate has no definitions and no rules against Kritiks. If you interpret realistically, you also ought to define what a gun is in this matter(which Pro did not), otherwise this would be completely absurd. This time, there is no scholarly article anywhere to be found.


Once we have established that with restrictions, the resolution is no longer the resolution itself anymore, the rest is easy.

Children aren’t mentally capable enough to be trusted with guns. The same reason they aren’t allowed to smoke, drink Beer and drive cars on the street. Unless Pro proves Children aren’t people or Children are to be trusted with guns, this point stands.

Same with Criminals and mentally ill people. Criminals would use the gun to kill, and Mentally ill people would use guns incorrectly, common sense. Would you let blind people drive? If so, what else is there to do if not take away their license, if there is one to begin with?

Everything Pro listed that I dropped are things rationally done by guns that are good. However, knowing that it is a common sense that most Children, Criminals and Mentally ill people could not be trusted with a gun, it is only expected that that the irrational use would increase in percentage, if gun rights were to be given to all of them.

Vietnam War veterans is an interesting case, however, they can be excused to have guns. Including the whole group of “mentally ill people” would enable Psychopaths to harm themselves and others. The section is entirely a fallacy of composition, as not all mentally ill people are veterans(most of them aren’t), and some of them might really harm the world with their guns.

Same...with children. If a kid is somehow skilled and matured enough to use guns, he may be excused. However granting the rights of owning guns to all kids would mean that kids not developed enough(which is normal) owning guns would be dangerous.

That being said, many criminals would definitely use guns to kill. Giving them guns isn’t doing society any good.

The three groups all would do dubious things with a gun, and they would potentially cause harm, on average. Some individuals among them could be trusted with a gun, but to equate them with the entire group would be a stretch. Most children/criminals/mentally ill people should not be granted the right to own a gun, even if they can use one. It is possible to grant every single one of them gun rights, but for the good of society itself, no.

There are untrained people at any given time in the world. They should not have the right to own guns, as they will either use it incorrectly, or use it at the wrong times, causing unnecessary damage.

If there is at least one person that can use a gun that shouldn’t be trusted with one, the resolution itself fails, According to logic itself. I have proven at least 3 cases of that. Thank you for reading. I rest my case.


(Only trained kids were shown. There are many more untrained kids.)

Round 3
BOP Analysis

My opponent puts an “answer” to this at the bottom of their constructive. Let me warrant out why this analysis is wrong. The topic is a resolution to either pass or fail. If a resolution was hypothetically “Resolved:Spend a penny to create utopia”, my opponent shouldn’t have the ability to say “well,one penny was spent, and the existence of cost is bad, so the resolution is bad”.Force my opponent to prove why the costs outweigh the benefits. If the world looks better after the passage of the resolution, then the resolution is a good idea.


First, my opponent drops the analysis of utilizing their own definition against them. “As much as possible”, meaning that if someone was limited by restrictive law, then it would not be possible for them to legally obtain a gun. This means that cross applying their own definition, we should acknowledge that legal restriction could influence the possibility. They never answered this analysis of their definition, so it still applies.

Second, my opponent ignores all of the legal context of constitutional rights reviews that have been available since round 1. To use agrammatical definition absent the legal context that this conversation is happening is blatant misdirection, especially when I’ve shown that the grammatical definition can be implemented in a way to help uphold this legal context.

Third, my opponent cites how equality discussions are formed and how women don’t deserve the same rights as men, but rights that create equality, and use boy scouts as an example. This is flawed logic,especially when you look at sources of rights. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3 says that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” It doesn’t make a distinction abouts gender or anything else of that nature. Every right in the declaration specifically says either “everyone” or “no one”. This means that rights are written for everyone, but distinctions that my opponent makes would happen through legal regulation, not through the rights themselves. This is further evidence that legal restrictions are key to any application of rights, meaning my opponent still has the burden to show an example of their disadvantages.

Pro Case

Extend everything has dropped, including 2.5 million crimes being prevented including 192,500 cases of sexual abuse, $523 billion dollars that would be harmed to the economy,300,000 jobs, $15 billion in wages, food accessibility expanding, and combating state violence as all the reasons guns are good. With the entire affirmative case unanswered, this all is weighing against Con’s Case.

Con Case

I extend across the dropped point that the entire Pro Case outweighs the Con Case. With no specifics on how much damage would be done through my opponent’s disadvantages, the very specific numbers I solve for economically, crime rates, food accessibility, and combating state violence easily outweigh.


First, if you feel I win the framework, then you can disregard this point as there isn’t any proof of a nation allowing children to have access to guns.

Second, my opponent dropped my point that there is already easy access to guns that children could get their hands on illegally, meaning the passage of the resolution doesn’t make the world any worse than the status quo.


First, if you feel I win the framework, then you can disregard this point as there isn’t any proof of a nation allowing criminals to have access to guns.

Second, extend that criminals circumvent gun laws. This means that the passage of the resolution doesn’t make the world any worse, but only better, because it allows people the right to protect themselves.

Mentally Ill

First, if you feel I win the framework, then you can disregard this point as there isn’t any proof of a nation allowing the mentally ill to have access to guns.

Second, extend across that it’s easy to get a gun illegally meaning that only the ability to protect yourself is important.

Third, while I cite the example of a Vietnam Vet, my opponent disregards the idea behind that. Psychopath as he cites or anybody with a mental illness would be afraid to get help. This means that bans on the mentally ill creates a strong deterrent for anybody who wants to arm themselves from getting the help they need. I would argue the benefit of therapy and medical treatment is the largest factor to consider.

Last Paragraph

My opponent says that proof that one person would wrongfully get a gun is proof to win, but extend across the BOP analysis as an answer to this.

Sorry for generally being tired last week.

Criticism on the Kritik of the Kritik...again

With obvious thinking, it would be true that every legal statement with a restriction would have those restrictions being specified. For example, "All people should have the right to drive cars" would be a fallacious statement as it would grant infants the rights of driving cars, in which they aren't justly entitled to the right of it. Thus, below that statement, there would be a statement restricting Children, criminals as well as other people unsuitable for driving vehicles.

However, that would not be "All people should have the right to drive cars" anymore. Sure, it could operate as a functional statement, but the statement is no longer true. There is not even a single hint that the topic statement, merely copied from another debating website, is to be treated as a legal statement with rights having restrictions.

This is a debating website, and our job here is simply to argue whether if the statement is true or not, or if a proposal is beneficial or not(In other words, if it is worth turning into reality). According to Oromagi and other debaters, If Pro doesn't specify that the BoP is shared or is on Con, the burden bears on the person making the statement, which is Pro. The only thing I, as Con, need to prove is that the proposition Pro proposes isn't worth turning into reality. 

TL;DR, This is a statement and I do not bear the BoP.

This is on top of that the only form of restrictions with the statement presented is in a form of an appealing to tradition.
Touse the United States as an example, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute as there is restrictions in regards to child pornography. To look at the second amendment for a more contextual example, felons and the mentally ill cannot own weapons, as well as fully automatic weapons are banned.
To be fair, if Pro outright claims that Children and Criminals will be excluded from the right of guns without any evidence, it would have worked better than this because he said in the descriptions that framework in R1 is okay. However, he actually didn't place down any restrictions at all! All he said was that the precedents have placed down some restrictions, such as the second amendment placing restrictions on children, etc. There is no hint at all in R1 about what groups would be restricted for the specific statement presented by Pro.

It would garner massive advantage for Pro if he justifies that the topic statement is basically the second amendment, but for the piece shown above, it is only being used as a contextual example for that restrictions on rights exist, but nowhere in R1 did he draw any equivalence between his statement and the second amendment. Nothing was said later about the same, not that it matters anyways.

Since we have came to the conclusion that nothing serving as restrictions are being placed in the first affirmative speech, and nothing after matters in this case, the topic statement, when treated as a legal statement, is without restrictions.

This would mean that the title statement would grant the right of bearing all kinds of artillery(Pro hasn't refuted the definition of Gun) to all the people that exists(It is technically possible to grant rights to anything nowadays). We can see that Pro demonstrably denies that this is true, indicating that it would be an unfavorable scenario for Pro.

Everything Else

It is without the need of evidence that criminals shouldn't have the right to own guns(since it isn't a part of the framework, he didn't place down restrictions). Even though people who understand the principles of morality uses guns to save people and boost the economy and save the country, the fact that 39,000 people are killed in 1 year with guns would mean that whoever bumped those numbers up should probably have their gun rights taken until they can use it properly in the right times(which is, never, for some really wicked people). But right now, most people locked behind bars for clicking a gun trigger wouldn't be justly entitled to guns.

The criticism of giving guns to Children is that it isn't precedented. However, it would be the same for alcohol, marijuana, vehicles as well as candidate for mayor. Would you let your 6-year-old daughter smoke, drink, drive cars and shoot guns(freely as private property, because "OWN")? The reason none of those rights were given to a child is because we understand, that they aren't justly entitled to enjoy any of those things.

The definition of "Right" goes unrefuted, meaning that in order for someone to have a right to something, said subject must be justly entitled to it. Pro, the BoP holder, has not proved that children are justly entitled to own guns(and use them freely). I have given unparalleled evidence that children aren't developed enough until 18(some even as late as 25) to enjoy any of those mature things, and to give them rights to guns is saying that they ARE developed enough to use guns, which is definitely not the evident case.

Same with Mentally Ill people. Obviously Psychopaths shouldn't be trusted with a gun, they have a tendency of using guns to harm, common sense. Even if Vietnam war Veterans are justly entitled to guns, still, definitely not psychopaths.

This site shows that regardless of a lack of gun-circulation laws in China, China is safe. Ironically enough, one of the top causes for violent crimes is terrorism in Xinjiang and other areas, possibly with firearms.

Again, since I do not hold the BoP, all I need to prove is that the proposed statement isn't a good statement to be proposed(or turned into reality, if applicable). Right now, we don't know if giving gun rights to every one that currently would be justly entitled to guns is the best solution, but granting gun rights to people that do not, such as children, is definitely not the best solution. It is not worth turning into reality.

  • Pro bears the BoP, I do not
    • All I have to prove is that the proposition isn't worth being proposed into reality
  • Pro didn't place down restrictions in R1, meaning that the proposition has no restrictions
  • Obviously, granting gun rights to children and criminals would be bad
    • It isn't worth being proposed into reality
  • Pro fails to fulfill the burden of proof

Round 4
My opponent did not refute anything I have said in the last round. As a result, I will recap what is being said by myself, the Con position of the resolution.

  • My opponent allowed kritiks
    • I have made a kritik regarding Children, Criminals, etc.
      • If correct, my kritik on that specific matter will stand
  • I have proven that I do not bear the BoP in a round that I can post new arguments
    • The BoP always rest on the claim-maker(which is Pro, and not me) unless specified, all I need to do is disprove Pro
      • All I need to do is prove that not all people should have the right to own guns
  • Pro has made a compelling case about restrictions of rights
    • Pro did not list any restrictions at all in the first speech, the only speech he is allowed to do so(He didn't equate this to the 2nd amendment, just COMPARED)
      • Since having a right with unknown restrictions is absurd and ridiculous, it is right to assume that there is NO restrictions placed upon this right
  • Murderers, Infants, and psychopaths(which are definitely people) should definitely not own guns, as they are not justly entitled to guns and would possibly cause threat
    • It is possible to grant every single living human being gun rights with the signing of a pen
      • Thus, not "all" people should have the right to own guns
  • The definition of "Gun" is not given by the instigator
    • The academic definition of "gun" includes RPG cannons and Heavy MGs and even Katyushas, and not just pistols and rifles.
      • As a result, according to Pro, law-abiding sane adults should have the right to freely operate heavy machine guns, even the untrained ones
  • That, above, is absurd
    • Logically, Pro's argument is just whatever is presented
      • Thus, not all people should have the right to own "guns"
  • Existing examples shows that in environments where owning guns isn't the norm, guns are a threat instead of a peace-protector
    • Those people who caused the threat would be better off without guns, and should not have the right to own guns
      • As a result, not "all" people should have the right to own guns
  • Pro specified that neither of us can make new speeches in the final round
    • The rule is agreed upon by both debaters
      • As a result, he won't be able to refute my R3 Arguments
That wraps up the recap.


Round 5
As that it is possible to grand gun rights to all people with the signing of pen on a paper to make it a law, all I need to prove is that some people don’t deserve the right.

Untrained children, psychopaths and murderers, which are people, are not justly entitled to freely using guns, as they may cause threats to themselves and others due to their brains not being developed enough or suitable enough for using weapons and not causing harm with it. Since this point is technically dropped(as Pro never proved that these people don’t exist or are justly entitled to guns), it stands.

Pro failed to define “gun”, leaving Con the opportunity to do so. Since according to the definition, Katyushas and Heavy MGs are guns, people could freely own and operate them legally according to Pro’s proposition. However, these guns are much more destructive and there are no precedents of any nation legalizing the public usage of these guns, thus destroying pro’s statement, as according to everything(or a lack thereof) he had given, “gun rights” includes rights to heavy machine guns.

While his arguments does ask for looser gun control, it only shows law-abiding folks over 18 using them rationally, and not psychopathic child-murderers walking around with firearms. It became clear: Law-abiding sane adults should have the right to own guns, and not “all” people. The Xinjiang terrorist movements are an example of when you give guns to criminals that aren’t suitable to have guns. They disrupt the peace instead of keep it.

Pro has placed down no restrictions, it would seem, thus the proposition would be considered of no restrictions.

I have proven that not all people should have the right to own guns, and people should not have the right to own all guns(as a part of the “gun right”, as it would grant people everything that can be classified as “gun”, especially since there is no restriction being placed down, it would seem). Pro has forfeited 2/5 of the rounds, leaving my arguments standing.

Thank you for reading. Vote Con.