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

Gun Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,198 times Debate No: 30614
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I angelcoba will gladly debate on the pro side for Gun Control. My opponent will debate why Gun Control is not needed and any other reasons why. Example: Limitations and restrictions is not needed due to respecting the 2nd amendment.My opponent will compete to argue why gun control is not needed in /ammo/etc... . I will argue why Gun control is indeed needed. I have the burden of proof to demonstrate to my opponent and to others why Gun control is important. I want my opponent to consider the following...
1.( Acceptance, Thesis )
2. ( Respond to objections)
3.( Conclusions )

I accept this debate to who ever accepts it.
I believe there should be formidable gun control all over the United States due to school shootings, movie theater shootings, and home invasions. I believe every American citizen should feel no need of protection while roaming around the community. Citizens should not fear those with guns. Heavy guns, guns that belong on the battle field. I as well believe in strong background checks for those that feel the need to purchase a gun. The world has knowledge to the school shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, United States. Sometime before 9:30 a.m. on December 14,2012, Lanza assassinated his mother. Around 9:35 a.m. he used his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle(a rifle in which only belongs on the battle field.) He shot his way through the locked glass doors
in front of the school, carrying high capacity magazines. 9:46 through 9:45 the shooting stopped after firing 50-100 rounds and reloaded only fifteen rounds from a thirty-round magazine. After the rampage, 20 children, 20 innocent children were found dead and as well as 7 adults. The killer was found dead as well, meaning this was caused for nothing. Now that the man is dead justice can't be served. And that angers me. The movie theater tragic: Gunman killed 12 in Colorado. In Miami a father was killed protecting his daughter from an home invasion. As we all suspect the criminals that killed the innocent people are mentally-ill. This is why I urge for strong background checks to all citizens that want to have possession of a gun in order to protect our citizens, our children of the future. I urge for reduction in ammo and weapons that belong only in the battle field and not in America's streets.

Thank you for anyone that is willing to accept this debate.


Hello, I'm Dylip, I will accept this debate with angelcoba, I feel it will be very interesting.

First off, I'll start with a quote from one of my favorite U.S. President's.

"It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience."-Ronald Reagan

It is true. No matter what laws are put into place, people who wish to inflict harm on other human-beings will not be fazed by gun controller's. There will always be a way to purchase firearms.

I do admit that all tragedies my opponent has listed could have been at least delayed by gun laws, but not stopped.

I will now allow my opponent to explain more of his argument so I know exactly what he'd like to highlight in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Indeed there will always be ways to purchase guns, but if we start to eliminate certain guns that are only useful in the battle fields and not in America's streets we will be more protected and less worried for our children. Thus making the person who wants to buy a weapon(heavy duty guns) will not have anything to buy anymore because of banning of assault rifles.


"...more protected"

-Despite the fact that military-style weapons are more dangerous, local police do not carry them, nor do they have them at hand. Police officers only carry a handgun and shotgun with them. So, there is no less or more protection on the streets even if military style firearms disappeared from everywhere but the battlefield.

"...not have anything to buy anymore"

-Even if assault rifles were banned, they'd still be purchaseable in other ways (e.g. black market). Also, if assault rifles no longer existed in the U.S., there's still a wide variety of firearms.
Debate Round No. 2


The main point of my argument is to make a change by banning high capacity ammo and high standard assault rifles. If a change is made, history is made. Giving solace and respect to those that fall victim to a crime. Police officers are there to protect us from pointless crime. They don't need an high standard assault rifle to show us that justice is being served.

Vote for Pro

Thank you


I do believe that if gun laws were to be put into effect, it would make history, but banning high capacity ammo and high standard rifles would have no affect on those who wish to cause harm on other humans nontheless.

Being so, as there sadly is a black market, a ban would make no difference.
Also, it costs money to make a new law, and it does require a lot of the Congress, President's, and Supreme Court's time that would be better used on other subjects.


Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by angelcoba 5 years ago
Vote for me please
Posted by Magic8000 5 years ago
Most guns that enter the black market were purchased legally. Same with other methods such as straw man buys

Con"s line of reasoning is just insane! Criminals will always break the law, so there should be no laws.
Posted by Dylip 5 years ago
Not intentions to brag, but I'm winning at the moment.
Posted by angelcoba 5 years ago
Soon one will vote.
Posted by Dylip 5 years ago
No votes yet, eh?
Posted by angelcoba 5 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments were pretty flimsy. Pro only made arguments ad misericorium to how scary guns were whereas con made the common argument that this would not prevent gun sales... Conduct goes to con since pro did a very poor job of definitions and kept trying to switch around what he meant by gun control. First it was background checks then limiting ammunition, not very clear. Nevertheless, con made the best argument and thus gets the vote.