Return to CreateDebate.commamoffat • Join this debate community

Ms Moffat's Class


Debate Info

15
14
Yes, we need to update it No, we don't need to update it
Debate Score:29
Arguments:29
Total Votes:29
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, we need to update it (15)
 
 No, we don't need to update it (14)

Debate Creator

anna2003(13) pic



1 - 2nd Amendment: The Right To Bear Arms

Do we need to update the second amendment for modern society?

Yes, we need to update it

Side Score: 15
VS.

No, we don't need to update it

Side Score: 14
1 point

The second amendment should be updated for our modern society.

There have been 100 mass shootings since the start of 2018. 36 People have already been killed this May, and 116 have been injured from school shootings. In 2017 there was 117 deaths, and at the start of 2018 there was already 21, and the number is still rising. It should be updated because people are losing their lives due to gun use.

https://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass-shootings-in-the-us-when-where-they-have-occurred-in-2018

Side: Yes, we need to update it
1 point

Once people have the right to bear arms it essentially means that anyone can get a gun at any time for anyone, even though there are requirements to get guns. These past two years has had many many gun related crimes, including ones with the guns in minors arms. According to CNN there has been on average one school shooting every week of 2018 so far. If guns were used to protect people then why have their been more then 212 deaths in 2018 due to mass shootings in the Us, and 588 deaths in 2017 due to mass shootings.

Side: Yes, we need to update it
anna2003(13) Disputed
1 point

If we update the Second Amendment amendment would take away that source of reassurance that we have for protection and self-defense. According the the Washington Post, it is a fundamental right for everyone to possess the means of self-defense in the home. We need guns to protect our loved ones from all danger out there in the world.

Supporting Evidence: The Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com)
Side: No, we don't need to update it
taminajeter(6) Disputed
1 point

The second amendment doesn't need to be repealed for the modern society.

It is believed that the guns are bad and only hurt you and the society, but the fact is that they also do the opposite. They continue to save many people’s lives such as how a Houston homeowner was able to defend himself when 3 unarmed men tried to come into his home and kill him. He used the gun he had to scare the criminals into not hurting him until the police arrived. The second amendment should not be updated because people should be able to have guns to defend themselves.

Side: No, we don't need to update it
1 point

Kinder Eggs have been banned in America to protect children. But they can’t get rid of guns that have killed thousands. If Kinder Eggs seemed like such a big problem that they had to make them illegal, guns should have been gone a while ago to as they kill many innocent people that have lives to live but were killed by a gun, but they haven’t been gotten rid of yet because of the money they receive from selling the guns.

https://www.inverse.com/article/41541-kinder-eggs-illegal-assault-weapons-legal

Side: Yes, we need to update it
taminajeter(6) Disputed
1 point

Kinder eggs were banned to protect young kids from swallowing them. Guns are not the same thing. Guns must be kept there for self-defense reasons.

Side: No, we don't need to update it
biancavukov(9) Disputed
1 point

Kinder Eggs are not nearly as dangerous as guns. People with guns kill other people, and if you would rather take away a kinder egg from a child than a murder weapon, then there really is something that should be changed.

Side: Yes, we need to update it
anna2003(13) Disputed
1 point

As Tamina stated, kinder eggs were banned because kids were swallowing them. Guns are very different from this. Also, repealing an Amendment will take time, repealing use of Kinder Eggs is an easy process.

Side: No, we don't need to update it
biancavukov(9) Disputed
1 point

The only reason they haven't banned guns yet is because of the money they are receiving from selling them. If one child swallowing a kinder egg made kinder eggs get banned, then guns which kill thousands should be too.

Side: Yes, we need to update it
1 point

The second amendment doesn't need to be repealed for the modern society.

It is believed that the guns are bad and only hurt you and the society, but the fact is that they also do the opposite. They continue to save many people’s lives such as how a Houston homeowner was able to defend himself when 3 unarmed men tried to come into his home and kill him. He used the gun he had to scare the criminals into not hurting him until the police arrived. The second amendment should not be updated because people should be able to have guns to defend themselves.

Side: No, we don't need to update it
Nourhajjali(6) Disputed
1 point

Even though guns may have protected this homeowner and many other people like him. Research and statistics show us when theirs a gun in a household theres an increase in the chance that the owner of the gun may get shot either by triggering suicide, homicide, or accidents. Based on research, owning a gun increases your chances of death by three ways, suicide, homicide, and accidents. Data from the national violent death reporting system indicates that “51.8% of deaths from suicide in 2009 were firearm-related; among homicide victims, 66.5% were firearm-related.”

Side: Yes, we need to update it
1 point

Terrorists and criminals don’t follow the law. So why would you expect them to follow gun laws? If you change the second amendment to state that you can’t own guns it’s just taking away people’s and the police’s way of defending themselves. Just because guns are taken away and gun control laws are formed doesn’t mean the criminals will follow. This does not mean that you should not have certain laws in place, it just means taking away the guns from good people won’t stop the bad and/or mass shootings.

Side: No, we don't need to update it
biancavukov(9) Disputed
1 point

There is evidence that changing gun laws can and will make a huge difference. Criminals are still there, but it changes. After Australia had a mass shooting, guns were banned and made much harder to get. Since then, no mass shootings have occurred there. Giving guns to the criminals makes killing much easier, and taking them away will stop it. So it will stop the mass shootings.

Side: Yes, we need to update it
taminajeter(6) Disputed
1 point

Just because guns are bans it doesn't mean that the people who already have them won't still use them. I agree to ban guns will make it harder for more people to get them, but what about the people who already own them? If criminals already don't follow the law, I doubt that they would have a change of heart and suddenly decide that they should give up the guns to the authorities.

Side: No, we don't need to update it
anna2003(13) Disputed
1 point

Banning all guns will not stop mass murders. People can take away other peoples rights to own a gun, but someone will eventually find another way to kill people and obtain firearms

Supporting Evidence: The Odyssey Online (www.theodysseyonline.com)
Side: No, we don't need to update it
1 point

According to Physiology Today and Orlando Sentinel and People, not guns, are the ones responsible for all the deaths and school shooting that have been happening recently, Guns don’t kill people, only people kill people. The people are the ones using the guns, sure, the gun makes it a lot easier to kill, but if someone would have never even touched a gun, none of these shooting would have happened. Guns don’t kill people themselves.

Supporting Evidence: Orland Sentinel (www.orlandosentinel.com)
Side: No, we don't need to update it
biancavukov(9) Disputed
1 point

Giving people the guns is making people killing people much easier. Yes people kill people, but when the guns are there for them to use, it makes it easy to kill dozens of people at once. People could find other ways, but they couldn't kill as many people as the shootings have killed.

Side: Yes, we need to update it
Nourhajjali(6) Disputed
1 point

As you stated yourself: "if someone would have never even touched a gun, none of these shooting would have happened." If people of the united states have access to guns i think they would be allowed to touch a gun in the first place. Guns are very violent dangerous objects that cause commotion in many countries, if there wasn't guns in the first place then the peoples decisions to kill people wouldn't be as successful with a baseball bat of a knife.

Side: Yes, we need to update it
anna2003(13) Disputed
1 point

Again, as stated in Psychology Today, guns do help people kill other people, but even with a baseball bat or a knife, there would have still been massacres. People will find other ways to kill others with the same effect as the guns. It will not make a difference.

Side: No, we don't need to update it
taminajeter(6) Disputed
1 point

I agree with your argument, however, there is no way for the modern society to 'un-touch guns' Laws about guns were made hundreds of years ago and it's too late to stop guns from coming into contact with humans. Now the focus must be on the fact that taking away guns won't help the problem it would just simply take away innocent people's form of self-defense and like I said before criminals won't give up their guns so it would give them an advantage.

Side: No, we don't need to update it
1 point

Nobody has ever repealed one of the ten items in the Bill of Rights. Why would you repeal a right that was there from the start? The founders put it there for a reason and that is for personal protection.

Supporting Evidence: The Daily Beast (www.thedailybeast.com)
Side: No, we don't need to update it
biancavukov(9) Disputed
1 point

They would repeal a right that was there from the start because it is killing more people than it is saving. Having the right to bear arms shows that people can not handle it, and are killing innocent people.

Side: Yes, we need to update it
Nourhajjali(6) Disputed
1 point

This amendment was written a long time ago when guns weren't as complex and weren't causing a huge commotion, there is no problem with change especially when the change will be protecting children's futures.

Side: Yes, we need to update it
anna2003(13) Disputed
1 point

The Amendment was written so people can have self defence over people with other types of firearms, guns too.

Side: No, we don't need to update it
1 point

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner says that all this gun violence can be implemented without violating the Second Amendment. Guns should be off the streets and not in the hands of everybody, but we should still not get rid of it. We still need it for self defense.

Supporting Evidence: New York Post (nypost.com)
Side: No, we don't need to update it