Students debated whether the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment should have limits or be controlled in The Great Gun Control Debate.

"Right now, somewhere in the United States, someone’s purchasing a gun. ... Use of these weapons can yield disastrous results," said Brett Nix, who argued in favor of increased regulations of firearms.

"Look at the news; there’s shootings everywhere in the United States every single day," Nix said. "Right now, somebody’s probably being shot as we speak."

Yet, Nix and fellow proponent of gun regulations Amon Kirk did not have many supporters in their corner. Only five people sat on the side of the room designated for supporters of gun control.

Instead, the two debaters faced critical questions and heckling, which was encouraged in Monday’s parliamentary debate, from nearly 30 people who were in the "NRA way of thinking."

Other debaters argued against increasing firearms regulations, saying guns are not as big a problem as drugs.

"Guns kill people like spoons make people fat," said Caitlin O’Dell, who said more cities should look at the city of Kennesaw that requires heads of households to own guns. "Guns are just an instrument, and it’s the person who really decides it."

Despite the imbalance in the audience’s opinions and most voting that gun control should be minimal, the audience vote indicated that both sides did an equal job of presenting their arguments.

Monday’s debate was part of a series of debates sponsored by the GSC Debate Club, Sigma Chi Eta, the Politically Incorrect Club and the Students for Progressive Society.

The next debate at noon on March 19 will center on liberalism versus conservatism.