Return to CreateDebate.comnocompromise • Join this debate community

8th grade Amendment debates

Welcome to 8th grade Amendment debates!

8th grade Amendment debates is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS Saksham2000

Reward Points:17
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
1 point

The founders of the nation's vision was that in the event of a foreign invasion, the citizens would be minutemen and fight for the nation. The situation is totally different today. The US government is all powerful. Irrespective of a gun or no gun the police can, find you and ensure justice. Therefore, saying that guns prevent you from tyranny is invalid.


Chief Justice of the US from 1969 to 1986( Warren Burger) has remarked that the second amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

1 point

"Both Australia and Britain, for example, experienced gun massacres in 1996 and subsequently enacted stricter gun control laws. Their murder rates dropped."

"Repealing the Second Amendment will not create a culture of life in one stroke. Stricter gun laws will not create a world free of violence, in which gun tragedies never occur. We cannot repeal original sin. Though we cannot create an absolutely safe world, we can create a safer world. This does not require an absolute ban on firearms. In the post-repeal world that we envision, some people will possess guns: hunters and sportsmen, law enforcement officers, the military, those who require firearms for morally reasonable purposes. Make no mistake, however: The world we envision is a world with far fewer guns, a world in which no one has a right to own one. Some people, though far fewer, will still die from gun violence. The disturbing feeling that we have failed to do everything in our power to remove the material cause of their deaths, however, will no longer compound our grief." -

The criminals would then be easier to find and try(judicial) as they can't dispute their own guns using the 2nd amendment to defend themselves. Also, “Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.” Therefore, each state could accordingly discuss resolutions and effectively use them.

1 point

While murders and assaults can not be completely irradiated they sure can be reduced. A recent study.

"A study of firearm deaths in high income countries was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003. The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US. In the US the overall firearm death rate was 10.2 per 100,000, the overall firearm homicide rate 4.1 per 100,000, and the overall homicide rate 6.0 per 100,000, with firearm homicide rates highest persons 15 to 24 years of age. For the US the overall suicide rate was 10.8 per 100,000, and slightly over half of these deaths were firearm suicide (5.8 per 100,000). Firearm suicides rates increased with age. In the other high income countries 2003 the overall firearm death rate was 1.4 per 100,000, the overall firearm homicide rate 0.2 per 100,000, and the overall homicide rate 0.9 per 100,000. Firearm homicide rates were highest in the 25 year old to 34 year old age group. The overal suicide rate was 14.9 per 100,000 with a overall firearm suicide rate of 1.0 per 100,000." Thus, by restricting access to guns you will be reducing chances of assaults. Also, what about suicides. Guns are the more lethal way of conducting suicides.

1 point

Well, then we should only provide children guns with stricter restrictions. And thus, in most countries arms are only given to those trained to use them such as military officers. thus, conducting background checks before freely handing guns over to civilians is necessary as you said.

2 points

The same article also later states, You'd actually be more likely, statistically speaking, to shoot someone by accident than you are to shoot a home invader. Also, Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.-

2 points

To counter this, suppose Adam Lanza himself had had no access to guns, the fatal killing of 20 would have never occurred, and thus nor the need of self-defense.

2 points

Having a gun in homes promotes that the citizens take the law into their own hands. Also, statistics clearly go against the fact that majority of gun usage in the United States is self-defense. As stated in the opening statement, For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.”

1 point

Opening Statement

Hey, today we are talking about The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which involves the Right to Bear Arms. In this opening statement, we will argue against this right. While there are many reasons to support our argument, in this video we will discuss only three of them. Starting off, what does the Second amendment say, the second amendment states that “ 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.”

Firstly, When the second amendment was created in the 18th century, the US Government primarily relied on its people to fight during war as it had no regulated militia. Therefore, in the unfortunate event of a foreign invasion, the US depended on its civilians to defend itself. Clearly, a well-regulated civilian militia is no longer a military necessity for the United States. Therefore, the question arises that “Does the second clause of the Amendment still apply even if the first clause, providing its reason, is no longer meaningful?”.From this argument we believe that it is essentially clear that the second amendment should hold no validity today as its first clause which holds its justification is completely invalid and untrue. - already said by me.

Secondly, arguing against the use of guns for self defense, I would like to present some statistics, an Emory University study concluded, “For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.” In the last 30 years, there have been 62 mass shootings (each leaving at least four people dead) in the United States. Since 1999 there have been 130 shootings at schools; nearly half involved multiple deaths or injuries. While we may turn a blind eye to interpretations and other judgements we must not ignore facts and these facts most certainly go against the 2nd amendment.

Finally, this amendment can be dangerous for kids too. In 2012 a mother lost her son by a gunshot. The persons who shot the 14 year old, was his best friend. In Georgia, Cassie Culpepper, 11 years old, was riding in the back of a pickup with her 12-year-old brother and two other children. Her brother started playing with a pistol his father had lent him to scare coyotes. Believing he had removed all the bullets, he pointed the pistol at his sister and squeezed the trigger. It fired, and blood poured from Cassie’s mouth. These stories prove that the second amendment should be banned from the amendments.

We believe that it is now obvious to you that the dis advantages of the Second amendment greatly outweigh the benefits.

1 point

As I said before charity begins at home. We don't exactly expect a person with numerous problems to help solve others problems. While the US may be very strong and an MEDC, it does not mean it is their duty to save the world. Also, they are financially stressed out currently.

Saksham2000 has not yet created any debates.

About Me

I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here