The Instigator
TwoandahalfDebatingBoiz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OneDebatingBoi01
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Gun Control

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 1 vote the winner is...
OneDebatingBoi01
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 107014
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

TwoandahalfDebatingBoiz

Con

You get the first shot, boi
OneDebatingBoi01

Pro

First of all, you are copying my name. Second of all, why shouldn't we have gun control? It keeps criminals from repeating things like the Las Vegas massacre, where 58 people were killed and around 400 other citizens, sustained injuries. With out background checks on gun buyers, a person with a violent record could easily come into contact with a deadly weapon.
Debate Round No. 1
TwoandahalfDebatingBoiz

Con

First, my name is 100% ORIGINAL! Second of all, even if we have gun control, Violent individuals can just rob the gun stores, and repeat the Las Vegas massacres anyway. What we really need is a better law enforcement. If there were more police, the Las Vegas massacre wouldn't have been as bloody. I affirm that stricter gun control doesn't need to happen, as it would be futile.
OneDebatingBoi01

Pro

If a gun store was robbed, that would just alert the cops fast, so the criminal who robbed the gun store would never have a chance to commit mass murder. Also, America already has a very strong police force, but they didn't know that a massacre was going to happen in Las Vegas, as there wasn't strict gun control. If there was, maybe 58 people wouldn't be dead.
Debate Round No. 2
TwoandahalfDebatingBoiz

Con

In gun stores, there are automatic machine guns. By the time the cops get there, the offender will be able to kill off the cops within a few short seconds. Another alternate way to stop massacres without gun control or law enforcement is to just stop selling machine guns that can be particularly harmful. Particularly harmful arms should only be sold to military troops. No strict background checks should not be done for measly hand guns.
OneDebatingBoi01

Pro

With stricter gun control, gun stores wouldn't sell heavy weapons or automatic machine guns to customers, just like you are saying. Guns like that WOULD only be sold to the army. Background checks should still be done for any guns, including handguns, since you can still kill with a handgun. Handguns also can be used for robbing, since it can cause people to fear for their lives. If the shot is placed well enough, it can easily kill.
Debate Round No. 3
TwoandahalfDebatingBoiz

Con

Ignoring the previous round, I have another point. With stricter gun control, many people wouldn't be able to get guns for self-defense. If a psycho murderer breaks into your house and tries to kill you, wouldn't you want a gun do defend yourself? In this situation, the pros of gun ownership far outweigh the cons.
OneDebatingBoi01

Pro

First of all, with gun control, a psycho murderer wouldn't have a chance to get a gun. There would be a background check, and if they have a mental illness that causes them to be violent, then they wouldn't get a gun. Also, you would be able to have a gun for self defense, as long as you don't have a violent background.
Debate Round No. 4
TwoandahalfDebatingBoiz

Con

First of all, psycho murderers can just use knives or bombs to end their victims. Second of all, many people would fail the background check simply for a ticket if gun control continued to get stricter. Third, In Texas, people are allowed to carry guns around freely. Very few Texans have been shot down as a result. It seems that gun-related homicides happen where gun control is stricter, probably because fewer people can defend themselves. Case-in-point.
OneDebatingBoi01

Pro

Yes, the psycho murderers can use knives (I don't know where they are going to get a bomb from) but so could the person getting attacked, or they could just use a gun against the attacker if they don't have a violent background. In Texas, you can't just carry around any gun. You can only carry a handgun on your person, which is part of gun control. But gun control could help improve death over there, as there was about 3200 gun related deaths in 2015, and it has most likely raised since then. Also, gun control has been proven to have lowered death rates in the states that previously did not have any.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by yyhoo 6 months ago
yyhoo
Pro is just firing away at countering Con's arguments.
Posted by Astartes 6 months ago
Astartes
Soviet Union and Knives*
Posted by Astartes 6 months ago
Astartes
Assault weapons and other firearms intended specifically for combat or AP should be heavily restricted, with an absurdly low sales rate. Background checks should be issued for all firearms, although on a lesser degree for lesser weapons. And even if we were to remove guns completely, criminals would still find means of carrying out their intentions. Take the soviet Union for example, who primarily turned to homicide with knifes and other blunt trauma weapons. Or in the UK and EU, where Jihadists are using vehicles as means to an end.
Posted by kylejames 6 months ago
kylejames
I am against gun control because if I was getting robbed i would shoot the robber. I am not taking the risk of getting shot for like 50 bucks in my wallet or my tv. I am pro guns and they should be legal for people but people who buy guns should be background checked to make sure they don't misuse the weapon.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 6 months ago
Leaning
TwoandahalfDebatingBoizOneDebatingBoi01Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave reasons why lack of gun control makes it easier for criminals to acquire guns. And gave reasons why it would be easier for police to be alerted if someone were to illegally and violently acquire a gun from a store. Pro pointed out that gun control does not entirely ban all guns and people would still be able to use them. Con inadvertently argued for gun control in the form of police and restriction of certain types. Con pointed out that some people will commit crime even without guns. Pro gave more arguments for gun control and countered several of Cons arguments. Pro more convincing argument. Conduct, spelling/grammar, sources were equal. I still don't care for gun control... Maybe there should be some regulation. But on fence.