The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

As the government of a fictional country, we should ban sales of firearms for civilian use

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/13/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 783 times Debate No: 92707
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




Short debate. 2000 characters per round. First round is acceptance. This debate uses judge voting and 7 judges have been nominated.

Repeat: First round is acceptance.

Definition: Sales of firearms for civilian use refers to freely buying and selling all forms of guns and ammunition in stores around the country. Generally speaking, this is a legal activity in America. However, the context of this debate is a FICTIONAL country.

What is excluded from this definition is acquiring a private license to own a gun. This is legal in many countries around the world especially for hunters, lawyers and law enforcers. This is not included in the definition of 'sales of firearms for civilian use' since these people have (arguably) a good reason for owning firearms and their background, job etc. are more rigorously checked and validated than the general public.

Looking forward to a good debate.


Let's do this.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate and to the judges for agreeing to vote on this debate.

Firearms are a big hazard to the lives of the people of Fictionland when it can be bought like groceries. Using real world events to provide some basis, the people of the USA have recently been shocked by the shootings in San Bernadino and the attacks in Florida, where a young 22-year old celebrity was murdered and at least 6 innocent people of the LGBT society were killed.

The opposition would lead you to believe that background checks are carried out on people before they are allowed to purchase a firearm. However, there are many dangerous firearms that can be bought and obtained on the same day as long as you have provided an ID. This was certainly the case in the firearms which were used in the incidents as mentioned earlier.

They would also lead you to believe that if everyone had guns, we could potentially save one another. Maybe so in Hollywood movies, but tell this to the kids like the shooting in Connecticut.

Even if we were to impose a more rigorous background check procedure in our home of Fictionland, it is impossible to detect every crazy person on the street. The "gay club murderer" who said he was pledged to IS was never even detected by the CIA (arguably the most intelligent agency in the world), and no one had the slightest clue he had the potential to kill in cold blood.

By banning the sale of firearms, we are removing the threat of violence. Yes, human beings kill, not guns. But today, we can already agree on nuclear treaties, wearing safety belts and heck, even using condoms. Just because the threat does not actually cause something, it does not mean we would not take protective measures to actually prevent a scenario from happening altogether. This is especially so when people are inherently violent and complicated and you cannot trust everyone to behave in the best of nature. Doing so would be an act of blind innocence.

Thank you.


By keeping the sale of firearms open to all, it provides a massive deterrent against would-be violent criminals. By taking the example of nuclear warfare, the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) comes to mind. The comedian who comes in thinking "All right, I've got a gun. Time to start shooting people in a crowded area!" may get to shoot someone, but is now facing so much firepower from the crowd that he's dead within seconds.

Background checks are needless and should be removed. You should be able to buy firearms as long as you provide ID.

Tell the kids in Connecticut that they should have been armed. That would have put down more than one mad dog. Your pathetic attempt at linking the use of firearms on unarmed crowds to the use of firearms in an armed society is insulting to the memory of said kids.

I see lots of complaints about the usage of guns on unarmed people, and he pledged himself to ISIS whilst calling 911. Also, the degenerates present were there to get hot loads on/in them anyway, so...

By banning the sale of firearms, we are restricting guns to criminals, as the law-abiding citizens now have no means of having ranged equalizers, while smugglers will do a brisk trade in the underground. People are inherently violent, so if they're as violent as Pro says, they need to take into account that everyone has an itchy trigger finger, and if they do anything, said itchy trigger fingers would have the moral high ground, as now there is a reasonable fear for one's life.

Unless Fictionland has literally perfect border police interdicting every single bit of contraband, in which case, presumably every other branch of government is so super-efficient that every single citizen could walk down the streets loaded for bear and it wouldn't raise concern because the police are so good at their jobs, there will be contraband guns readily available anyway.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2


Just because everyone else has weapons does not mean you can stop violence. In fact, many terrorists and gunmen do not even worry about being killed. They go in fully expecting to be dead at the end of the day and as long as they have taken as many lives with them, or made as much noise in the media, then their mission is accomplished.

This is the kind of scenario that will pan out should a room suddenly turn into a warzone because someone pulled a trigger. In fact, we think that it will make it hard for authorities to actually prosecute a guilty party since everyone would be shooting and killing off each other.

Surely my opponent is not suggesting that even kids below 18 years old should be allowed guns. And that was immediately after he said buyers need to provide ID. Seems like contradicting statements to me since he alludes that any age group can own a gun.

"Also, the degenerates present were there to get hot loads on/in them anyway, so..." What does this sentence even mean? I sure hope my opponent keeps this debate as respectful and as civil as it should be.

The problem with my opponent's arguments is that he continuously falls back onto the idea that 'it's not a perfect world. We can't stop underground sales so everyone should be allowed on board'. That, to me, is like saying we can't stop accidents because people are imperfect. So get rid of the speed limit. We can't control the weather. So don't bother having special structures on buildings in the case of earthquakes.

A challenge is that people who are in the guns business will lose a lot of money if we ban guns. That is why I have set the scope of this debate to Fictionland where the firearms industry does not have a rich history and is being debated on whether or not it should even be allowed to exist. Notice that if we were to look at how this will impact the economy, jobs etc. this would be a more complicated matter but we will not be going there.

As such, I stand firm on the basis of safety.


Those gunmen are going to go nuts anyway. They will get their hands on firearms courtesy of the black market, as stated before. It's not hard. The restriction on firearms will only hurt law-abiding citizens, as stated before,

It's fairly easy to trace "Oh yeah, this guy whipped out a gun, got a few shots off, and then the building got a few new and interesting holes in it." I think that the authorities would forgo prosecution in favor of corpse disposal in this case.

Nice attempt at a trap. Presumably, kids would have a parent present for this kind of thing. I mean, I've known how to shoot a rifle (M1 Garand) since I was a little kid (I was 7), but I had the basics of gun safety drilled into my head before I even laid eyes upon it. Presumably, any parent intelligent enough to be able to afford a gun would have their children read the manual.

It was a place where people went to hook up and have sex. Basically, it was a haven for libertines.

The thing about your analogy is that it is flawed. People are imperfect, true, but the big thing about guns is that in the hands of a big guy, they make him more scary, but in the hands of some weedy guy, they're an equalizer that put him on par with the aforementioned big guy in terms of shooting power. God made Man, Sam Colt made him equal, and John Browning made him civilized. (Read: Sam Colt introduced widespread personal armament, and John Browning made, nay, set the standard for military-grade gear.)

The speed limit is completely arbitrary for sure, but it's a nice standard. Earthquake-proofing is an insurance policy. Keep 'em both.

A major plus to public armament is that having "a rifle behind every blade of grass" (attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto, Fleet Admiral, IJN) would deter foreign powers from invading. Would you take an army into a city with a gun pointed out of every window, nook and cranny, and then deal with the actual military?

I too believe in safety. I feel a lot SAFER when I am armed.
Debate Round No. 3


I am compelled to tackle 2 points of contention:

1) Selling guns in the black market
2) Guns being a deterrent to potential violence and a tool for defense

1) If we are to agree that the authorities can never completely wipe out black markets especially pertaining to guns, this does not mean that people on the streets are helpless to shooting attacks. Law enforcers will still be equipped with guns (AND properly trained to use them ethically and effectively) and they will still be around to protect the people. It is not as if we are all just sitting ducks waiting to be shot at. EVEN IF there is no one around to save you, having a gun will mean nothing if attacks happened all of a sudden, and they usually do. Unless you plan on having your weapon out at all times including in the cafes and at schools which people around you WOULD NOT appreciate.

2) EVEN IF you buy a gun for defense purposes, that is exactly the kind of argument everyone makes to justify buying a weapon. Psychos and murderers conveniently exploit this. Wouldn't it be easier to enforce, if guns were only allowed to be used by the authorities and not just every layman who walks into the store to buy Kalashnikovs. Your final word about "a rifle behind every blade of grass" is true if we were in war-torn areas like Vietnam (a long time ago) and Afghanistan. In these instances, it would be great for everyone to cheap in to defend the country.

But the fact is in Fictionland, we are not at war right now. We are just civilians going to jobs and having days out with our family and friends. We do not want to go out having to worry about the next shooting spree. What kind of a country are we building if every day, you have to arm yourselves for the simple fact that "you know, some psychos gonna be loose today."

You ended by saying that you would feel safer armed. Yes, coming from a person who has been trained to shoot since a kid. But not everyone has had access to that kind of education.

Thank you.


Okay. Let's dance.

You seem to put a bit too much faith in the legal authorities and their ability to respond in a timely manner. The problem is that when seconds count, they're only minutes away at best. (First, you have to be able to physically dial 911, then it's the "Hello, 911. Police are being dispatched." *Police are called up and a patrol car deployed*, *Distance and traffic*) The sudden attacks would still happen, but the police can be somewhat lax in arriving quickly, because they're going to spend more time identifying the bodies than securing the perimeter, because the people that did have guns and didn't get shot are going to be shooting the idiot. Also, individual establishments are entirely free to say "Keep your guns holstered/sheathed," or make patrons check them at the door.

Here's a trick, though. Were we to let the arms industry in fully, someone would take them aside and point out that maybe they should include an instruction manual that has the words "Don't be an idiot" in big bold letters printed somewhere on it.

Protip: Fictionland is always being threatened by its neighbors that covet its wide tracts of land. Sure, they're at peace right now, but what of the moment after the next?

You are assuming that the gun is going to be used for self-defense. There are some that use it more often as a fashion accessory, which says to the people around them. "I am armed and know how to use it." This has a side-effect of deterring the common gain-motivated criminals, who upon realizing that at least one person in the area is armed, will stop to reconsider their plan to rob the place. Who said it had to be a psycho planning on killing things? Seeing as most common criminals rely on intimidation to do their dirty work, having another gun pointed at them is a blow to their plans on the level of "We can't do it now." Would YOU go into a building with at least two guns you know of with their wielders having more than enough justification to shoot you?
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
RFD Part 3

Since Con won, most/all of the arguments made in this debate, I have no choice, but to give the arguments points to Con.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
RFD Part 2

Round 3
Pro argues that being armed doesn't necessarially help since many of the terrorists aren't dettered by guns as all they want to do is just be on the media or take tons of lives and their mission is accomplished. Pro argues that if we allow this then we would have a road-warrior like anarchy. Pro agrees with Con that the world isn't perfect, but that isn't the reason we would allow guns. Con brings up that the terrorists will get their hands on guns anyways through the black market, so Pro's argument doesn't really matter. Con addresses Pro's argument on children by stating that children would give them instructions on gun safety and have them read the manual (honnestly who would read the manual.) Which Pro drops. Con then counter's Pro's "get rid of everything" analogy by talking about how the gun is the great equalizer and since people will get their hands on guns anyways, just allow everyone to be able to have them. Con brings up how it can help deter invasion.

Round 4
Pro begins by arguing that it wouldn't matter if the black market isn't stopped as the law enforcement would be able to stop them in the streets. He argues that having a gun might not always work unless you always had it out. I'm assuming conceal and carry along with Open Carry is what he's talking about. Pro then moves on to say that criminals would exploit the status quo to get more weaponry. I'm going to discard Pro's constant updating of the state of this fictionland as it only harms the Con since Pro did not outline this in R1. Con counters by stating that there is way too much faith in law enforcement as they won't always get there in time, plus there might not even be anyone to call 911, so this is important and I have to give this argument to Con. Con brings up how people can use it as part of a collection instead of self-defense. Con repeats his arguments on how guns help deter. This argument is a toss-up, but I have to give a slight advantage to Con on this one.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
RFD Part 1

Round 2
This debate really didn't have much of a roadmap, so I shall be going by round on this. Pro begins his Round 2 argument by giving us the example of the San Bernadino incident when guns are "bought like groceries." Pro argues that background checks are flawed since all you have to do is provide an ID. Though that's not necessarially all you need for background checks. He then brings up the Orlando shooter and how he went undetected. He was really on the no-fly list. He argues that by banning fire arms that we protect people and is something that everyone can get behind and lists a few examples. Con, ironically, uses the US's aspect of MAD, which was an example of something that's agreeable under Pro's list, that we would use nukes on someone who used them. Con says we should get rid of background checks saying that we only need IDs which falls into Pro's arguments. Con counter's Pro's argument by stating that it wouldn't matter since the people on the ISIS recruiting team would simply find a way to get weapons anyways. Con argues that by doing this you are taking guns away from people who want and/or need to defend themselves from others while criminals would get the guns anyways causing more problems for the Average Joe. He then talks about the vagueness of this nation that many people could get countrabands across the boarder leading to more crime and issues.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
Someone please remind me to vote on this tomorrow.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
whole world voting would mean the same
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
votes mean nothing.

Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
I'd assume one with a neutral stance. No recent acts of terrorism, and appeals to tradition (I hope).
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
What kind of debate is this when you just make a fictional country without providing any background for it?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Nominated judges are: Blade-of-Truth, lannan13, whiteflame, YYW, bladerunner060, Ragnar, Wylted.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Pm me when this is ready for a vote
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments section.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: I can't pick a winner right now, after reading the debate. It was pretty close. If nobody votes contact me with 12 hours left and I will force myself to determine a winner.