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

Gun Laws / Control in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,440 times Debate No: 26112
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (45)
Votes (2)




I do not think there should be restrictions on Guns. Now, let me make a clear point here. I'm talking about guns, not deadly weapons ex. Nuclear Bombs or Missiles. I believe that the gun control in the US is unnecessary and nonproductive.
I am glad to find someone to debate me over this topic in which I feel very strongly about, and welcome you and you're beliefs honorably.
So, here we go. Gun control and laws are wrong.


Hello, Samyul.

Thank you for the debate and I appreciate the sentiment. Unfortunately, however, I strongly disagree with your premise.

My opponent's claim.

My opponent has stated that he does not believe guns should be restricted. On first glance, you'd naturally assume that he meant further restricted or abolished. But no, as of Thursday, 10/11/12 5:10 am, through his posting in round one and through his remarks in the comment section it is very clear that my opponent is referring to any restriction whatsoever.

My opponent's inevitable defense.
Being that my opponent resides in Columbus, Ohio, it isn't unreasonable to assume he's referring to the US. My opponent's defense is 2 fold. He must first defend the abolition of basic gun possession laws, and then defend restriction of gun possession in regards to area. As defined by this debate, my opponent has rejected the laws preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns & that gun owners are to be above the age of 18 years old. I ask you, my opponent, my audience, and my judges, is it plausible to allow a 10 year old child to walk to the store (Because we deem him/her unacceptable to drive due to age and maturation) and buy a fully automatic assault rifle? In terms of area, should that same child be allowed to take his newly equipped fully automatic assault rifle to elementary school?


In conclusion, it is inconceivable to allow a 10 year old child to possess said weapon, and then allow the child to take it to elementary school. Thus, requiring gun restriction laws.
Debate Round No. 1


Clearing Up the Confusion
There has been a lot of confusion in this debate. I would like to clear things up.
First- You are right when you say "You'd assume that he meant further restricted or abolished." That is what I mean and have been trying to clear up. The comment I left was very unclear and I hope you and the audience understand that you're right when you say I think guns should be no further restricted, because current laws are strict enough. I hope that clears up what I stand for on the issue and do apologize for any confusion. I am standing for no further restrictions than what there already are. Thank You.

Now, I realize when my opponent states his argument for round one, he was unaware of what I said in the previous section "Clearing Up the Confusion" Also, a ten year old has no constitutional rights, so that comment at the end was completely irrelevent. My opponent stated above unaware of what I stand for, and in the debate my opponent has gotten the idea that I am for no gun restrictions at all, which is not what I stand for, and I apologize if you were confused. The comments I understand may have been misleading.

The Debate of No Further Restrictions
My opponent in taking the "Pro" (For) side of this debate means that he is in favor of more restrictions on our guns. With more restrictions than there already are, that would not allow certain groups to get guns. Now, that is a direct attack on the "Right to Bear Arms," our second amendment.
So, let's say in theory that his idea follows through. Technically, as American people we would be losing an amendment, a right as a citizen of the United States. Nobody, has the power to take our rights. Not mine, not my opponent's, and not the audience or judges. And if you are in favor of losing one of you're rights than it is your right to vote for my opponent, but if people like my opponent keep getting their way you will lose that right too, and won't be able to vote for who you want. Which leads me directly in to my next topic.

Taking Our Rights
If the people of this country keep getting their way with issues like this, we may lose more rights than just our guns. Here's an example: It starts with taking away assault rifles, then taking away anything that has the ability to shoot automatic, then losing pistols, then no guns. Which means you just lost the "second amendment" And if you lose one amendment why not another? And another? Once they get started and realize how much they can take from you, the government will not stop. So let's stop this now, this is America.

Adding more restrictions would just take us closer and closer to losing guns in general. Here's a small article I came across on the internet that I thought was very informative, so why not give it a look. I don't agree with every specific detail but I think it gives a lot of good points on why we need to stop adding more restrictions-

Talking to a good friend of mine about gun laws I heard something I will never forget. And I quote him, "Remember, more people have died for you're freedom than they have in mass shootings domestically"

And I would love to end on that idea.
Think of all the blood, sweat, and tears our soldiers have lost fighting to keep rights like the second amendment. Lets not let their dedication, hard work, and lives go to waste. Stop taking our rights.



Thank you, here we go again.

Firstly, I offered my opponent (in the comment section) the chance to revamp his position if he decided to concede the first round in my favor. Being that he has revamped, I'm assuming that he has agreed to the terms. The score is now 1 round to my opponent's 0.

Very brief side argument:

"..a ten year old has no constitutional rights, so that comment at the end was completely irrelevant."~My opponent

Nonsense, it was to point out that he had 0 limitations on guns, a flawed premise. If my opponent didn't establish limits, he can't then pick at my argument that points out the flaw in his premise. Especially considering that it was a very important concern in regards to his initial (inevitable) stance.

We are talking about the Constitution of the United States.

Firstly, my opponent has set up a straw man in order to take him down and appear the clear victory; he is debating himself. I never made the claim that I wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment. But even then, he's run face first into a straw man he has accidentally made from brick..

In this debate, my opponent is attempting to uphold the US constitution as someone would the bible--as if it is the infallible word of God. It isn't, and things can be changed and added when reason is sufficient.

For example, we no longer follow the 3/5's compromise, nor the 18th amendment (in it's originality).

He states:
"And if you lose one amendment why not another? And another?"

This is an obvious slippery slope fallacy. Did we lose amendments in domino fashion when we excluded the 3/5 compromise or prohibition? No, this argument is nonsense and a clear copout--I'm very aware of which amendment it is, we're to be talking about if it should be changed.

The proposition of more control.

As it stands, in Missouri (the state in which I reside) one does not have to go through an agency to sell his firearm to a private person after it has been purchased from the store. [1] In fact, it states, "It is unlawful to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm or ammunition to any person who is not lawfully entitled to possess one." Problem is, there is no way for the average citizen to ensure that he is not selling to someone who is unlawful. Anyone can possess a fake ID that says they're overage, there are people with mental handicaps that can seem normal for a reasonable enough time to buy the gun from you, and every, and there is absolutely no way of knowing if a person is a felon or has any of the other disqualifying characteristics.

This undermines the basic principle of safety. The reason for these steps (Background check, show driver's license, register the firearm, etc.) is to help prevent guns from being in the hands on criminals. Is it truly unreasonable to create a law that makes it mandatory for private sellers to sell to private parties through an FFL dealer? Of course not. Without these specific laws being followed, the sanctions currently on gun control are undermined. Missouri is not alone, there are only a select few that don't allowe an open sale of firearms between private parties.

My opponent must stop with the baseless assertions. I have no interests in abolishing the 2nd amendment, I collect guns. Soldier are not dying specifically to protect our second amendment, they're dying to protect our free society-- something that exists with or without guns.

Debate Round No. 2


First of all I would like to thank my opponent for such an interesting debate so far and I'm disappointed it is slowly coming to an end.
This is the third and final round of the debate, so in this round I will be laying out four things;

1) My Opponent's false statements and quotes
2) My Response to my opponent's in round two
3) My final statements and points to which my side is correct
4) Closing Statements

So, let us begin:

My opponents false Statements and Quotes

Quote 1) "The score is now 1 round to my opponents 0"

Response) I personally believe that we should let the audience and voters decide what the score is, not us. We are not debating the score we are debating guns, so that should be our main focus. Also, there is no "score" right now, so let's not establish one independently, please.

Quote 2) In reply to my previous statement, "A ten year old has no constitutional rights" my opponent says,
"Nonsense, it was to point out he had 0 limitations on guns,"

Response)That is completely false. It is a basic fact to everyone that we do not get constitutional rights until we are a legal citizen, in which you must be 18 years of age. Also, if you add more gun restrictions it will not be effecting the ten year old. A ten year old could take a gun in to school whether there are gun laws or not, because they do not pertain to him. Because, once again, a ten year old has no constitutional rights.

Quote 3) "Soldiers (Opponent typed "soldier" clearly meaning "soldiers") are not dying specifically to protect our second amendment,"

Response) That statement is not what I would consider to be a false statement, because it is obviously true. A soldier does not go out and die for our country just because he wants to make sure the people back at home have guns. He goes and serves his country for like my opponent stated, "free society" and part of having a free society is having our rights. And one of our rights is the right to bear arms. So yes, obviously a soldier isn't fighting alone for our second amendment, he is dying for all of them.
Which includes the second amendment!

Quote 4) "I have no interest in abolishing the second amendment,"

Response) I would hope you don't! I don't think anybody does though, unless of course a communist. Nobody really wants to lose an amendment, but if we keep adding more and more restrictions to what already exists, we may loose the amendment. Now, nobody's main focus is to abolish amendments, but if we go down the continuous path of more and more restrictions, you will loose an amendment. A right as a citizen.

Response to Round 2

In round two, my opponent talks of how we need specific gun laws to be followed and obeyed to keep us safe. For example, strict strict trading/selling laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
With stricter gun laws, you are disarming the wrong people. The only people that will follow these laws are the law abiding citizens, who are not the ones that will be using guns in a dangerous way anyway.
Like I said, you are taking guns away from the people that won't be doing anything wrong or dangerous with them. Criminals will still get guns no matter how strict you make laws, through concepts such as underground or "black market" selling. The only thing removing guns or making them harder to get would make criminals value them more. Leading to an increase in gang violence and gang activity. Criminals will view guns as more valuable.
This same concept goes with illegal drugs. Drugs such as cocaine are illegal. Criminals still obtain cocaine and use it though. The people that don't are law abiding citizens. The same with guns. You can restrict them more and more and even take them away, but criminals will still get them, and the average, law abiding citizen will not. You will make criminals more dangerous.
Now, you are basically taking away self security. Now the criminals have guns and the citizens don't, which make the criminals at least two times more dangerous and powerful.
My opponent really does not give any solid facts that gun control would reduce gun violence in the United States, and does not actually state why he wants more control. Therefore, its hard for me to debate off of nothing.

Why my side is correct

Now, this section will in the most simplest forms, wrap up why my side is correct. Why we need to stop restricting gun laws further and further, for they are strict enough. Now, my opponent has never actually stated specific reasons on why we need more strict laws than already in place.
Here are some basic laws already in place throughout various states in the USA.

You have to be at least 21 years old to purchase and own a handgun in the U.S.

Now whether you agree or disagree with Wikipedia, I would just like to post this article on gun laws in ALL the states.

Criminals cannot own a gun, nor can illegal aliens

You must be 18 to own a shotgun or rifle

Now, those are some laws in the simplest of forms. If you would like to, you may check those sources, for which those are where I have collected most of the information. (Excluding Wikipedia)
My opponent stands for stricter gun laws, and aren't those good enough? I mean should we have to wait until we are fifty years old to own a handgun? And also criminals, illegal aliens, and mentally unstable people cannot own guns, so who else shouldn't? Should we remove guns from more and more social groups?
Gun laws are strict enough, we need to stop adding more and more restrictions so we don't loose our second amendment.

Closing Statement
Based on the facts, based on the sources, based on the common sense, gun laws are strict enough. We need to stop adding more and more restrictions. Like I said earlier, our soldiers die for our freedom, and part of our freedom is our right to bear arms. Our country is a fantastic country, because of our freedom. Lets not restrict our freedom, lets savor it. Part of further gun control is further restrictions. Lets stop taking away.

Thank you all for reading both mine and my opponents debate. I hope you enjoyed the debate, the topic, and the facts. I can't wait to see what everyone thinks about the debate. A special thanks to my opponent for providing an entertaining debate and being a great opponent. I hope everyone enjoyed, and may the best argument win!

All the sources used in this round:
My opponents previous argument.



"I personally believe that we should let the audience and voters decide what the score is, not us."

The reason I gave my opponent an ultimatum was because he is now wanting to debate an entirely different issue than what his resolution and 1st post implies. It was only after I accepted that I went to the comment section and realized that he may have made a typo, but even then he stated, "I am against gun control. The end. I think we should not control people's guns." As you can see, I thought it was pretty clear what he meant, that he was against gun restriction--the word "further" didn't appear until after my reply. When I realized how impossible it'd be for my opponent to uphold his own resolution, I offered him a way out. This wasn't even an attempt to be mischievous, I genuinely realized that my opponent couldn't uphold his resolution and offered him a way out, if he conceded the first round of the debate he initially started. If my audience believes this to be mischievous or malevolent, then I am sorry, ignore the proposition. I just thought I was being fair in giving him a fair shot at winning, because in actuality, you cannot change what a resolution specifically states, after the debate has started.

His next quote, "That is completely false. It is a basic fact to everyone that we do not get constitutional rights until we are a legal citizen, in which you must be 18 years of age."

I'd like to point out that my opponent is clearly mistaken. You are a legal citizen of the US if you go through the process (for those who were born outside of the borders) or if you are born here. Children are legal citizens of the US of A. Secondly, at that point in the debate we were not talking about constitutional law. We were referring to the fact that my opponent's resolution and 1st post say that there should be 0 restrictions on firearms. For instance, there is no restriction on the sale of bubble gum, a 10 year old can buy. If there were 0 restrictions on firearms, a 10 year old can buy. Completely void of any constitutionality claim by my opponent.

On to the attack on my opponent's 2nd round case:

My opponent misses the mark..
"With stricter gun laws, you are disarming the wrong people. The only people that will follow these laws are the law abiding citizens, who are not the ones that will be using guns in a dangerous way anyway."~My opponent

My opponent is completely off. My premise was that private sellers have no way in knowing that they person they're dealing with is being truthful. Of course criminals are dishonest, this is exactly why I proposed a plan to have private sellers have to go through an FFL dealer, so that the buyer has to still undergo a background check, etc. to make sure that all of his information is valid. That's not disarming anyone who would be in the wrong, that's making sure only people who are in the right can receive the gun. He then states that gun laws are strict enough, but I have just showed where it is absolutely legal for a random person to pass the background check and sell it to another person who he may believe is an honest gun owner (non-criminal) and that person could possibly be a terrorist. Not only that, the original owner has no way of finding out if the person he's dealing with is a criminal or not.

Yes, you have to be 21.

No. There is no such thing as gun laws in all states. It's a state by state basis. In California, for example, you can only have a gun that holds no more than 10 bullets at a time.

Criminals can not purchase a gun from an FFL dealer. TRUE.

However, none of these restrictions apply to private sellers-- as they have no way in looking these things up or validating them. This is why I've proposed every private seller go through an FFL dealer. No one is trying to take anyone's guns, no one is trying to abolish the 2nd amendment & no legal gun owner is barred from ownership.

These reasons above are why I prove more strict gun laws would hurt non one's "freedoms," and would help in the fight to keep guns out of the wrong hands. As I assume not to provide sources for the fact that cars have wheels, I have assumed that restriction of guns to criminals can help lower crime-- no sources needed for this round.

Thanks, good hunting.

Debate Round No. 3
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Samyul 3 years ago
Hey everyone! I know this debate is old but realize it is still being viewed. I am in ANOTHER gun debate, you can check it out on my page!
Posted by Noradrenergic 3 years ago
Oh forgot to add - My vote would go to con here, but having trouble verifying my identity as of yet.
Posted by Noradrenergic 3 years ago
I think it is quite clear based on a lot of evidence that US gun laws are inadequate and contribute to the US highly disproportionate rate of gun related deaths. Nobody is allowed to carry a concealed gun over here, and although gang members undoubtedly have access to black market guns, the amount of shootings that happens here is infinitesimal in comparison with the US per head of population, with the majority of gun deaths being a result of hunting accidents.

I would like to debate the evidence nonetheless, perhaps I can have a go when this one is all over.
Posted by nextobama21 4 years ago
im all for self reliance. i am thirteen and i know how to hunt, make a shelter, use a knife, cut down a tree with a standard pocket knife, and how to fix almost anything that is not complexed( electronic circuit etc). i think i am the only one in my school. in switzerland every man woeman and child know who to use a gun, they practice shooting, shooting and guns are a part of their culture and everybody is armed and there is no crime. this is due to their trust in the government and their knowledge. in the united satiates gun laws are different, many people hate the government and there is a large crime rate. anyways i myself think every one who does no have a mental problem a criminal record or another probes or history of anything that may cause concern should have a gun or at last to use one
Posted by 100_percent_Syd 4 years ago
Second amendment people, second amendment.
Posted by Samyul 4 years ago
Ok, sorry for the agressive comment Rayne, when your intent was innocent. Sorry again!
Posted by RayneLaury 4 years ago
It was hardly my intent to be rude. I apologize. I even pointed out that I think if you developed your debating fundamentals more, you already have good viewpoints, just flesh out your skills a bit more.
Posted by Samyul 4 years ago
Please. The whole skill topic was irrelevant and just plain rude. Lack of experience is a better term, that was my first debate on the site. I'm sure you're not a perfect debater, and its not a skill thing, it's an experience one. Or maybe it is skill, only time will tell though, not your arrogant comment. I took offense to that, maybe you didn't mean it to be offensive, but that was my first debate, ever. Cut me some slack please?
Posted by RayneLaury 4 years ago
Of course laws need to be put in place to restrict the usage of guns. That is why we have a legislative branch that can create laws and we don't just go by whatever was initially said in the constitution. I believe that the con argument was not that gun laws are wrong, I believe what he was attempting to argue was that increasing gun regulations leads us own a very scary slope (just as obscenity laws have breached the first amendment). Once the second amendment is initially breached, it is a lot easier to continue to change and regulate the usage of guns. I firmly believe the second amendment exists because our founding fathers knew that no matter how many checks and balances they put into the constitution, it would eventually be abused as we've seen with multiple violations of the War Powers Act by Presidents over time and the rise of a stranglehold two-party system that is ruining elections and leading to complete dysfunction at the federal level. The beauty of any government is that no matter what, if it becomes too large, it WILL collapse. The Roman Empire, the Napolean Empire, the multiple Chinese Empires, the British Imperialist Movement, the German Third Reich...all of them stretched themselves too thin by becoming too large and collapsed upon the burden of their own fascism. However, we were given the second amendment because it was clear to our founders that eventually, the Republic would grow to be too large, and revolutionary actions might need to occur then. The government is actively trying to take weapons away from its citizens today. It has grown too large. We've conceded too much of our power as the people. It's one reason why representative democracy has and never will work long term.

So while I understand the con point of view, the pro did win here based on better debate mechanics and fundamentals. I hope the con takes away from this, because he wasn't wrong, he just wasn't skilled enough to challenge the better debater in pro.
Posted by CRSdave 4 years ago
Oh I see you actually want to have a real debate? Sure, anytime"send me a challenge. You don't have to abolish the amendment in your arguments, merely fight for more control. It is a difficult debate to have though, as shown by the content of this one. I suppose I will discontinue this "comment debate" now in favor of the actual one.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BA_BA_BA 4 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was very assuming and did not make good arguments
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Both hardly fulfilled their burdens. Con simply used a slippery slope fallacy and talked about our freedom being taken away. He said that it would empower criminals and weaken the public, but he provided no evidence in favor of his assertion. Thus arguments go to Pro, but I deducted conduct for what appeared to be a semantic argument: saying that Con's statements implied he wanted to abolish all gun controls when Con made his intent clear.