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

Gun control in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,236 times Debate No: 31078
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




First off I would like to say that gun control became a hot topic again after Sandy Hook. Taking away guns or banning the sale of them would be violating the second amendment. Taking away guns would also threaten the security of citizens. Taking away assault rifles will only affect the law abiding citizens. Criminals will still obtain assault rifles and other guns through the black market. Its much faster for someone to pull out a gun when someone is breaking in to your house. The police take longer to arrive to help and someone just simply shooting that criminal as self defense. A gun is a hunk of metal without the control of a human being. Guns do not have souls, people do. So should spears be banned in Zimbabwe because they "kill", I do not think so. Just like guns, a spear is just a inanimate object that can't do anything without a human being. In conclusion, gun control will cause a series of problems and crimes, though better background checks are good.


Gun control is a major topic in the US nowadays, so I am pleased that my opponent started this debate. I look forward to hearing new, fresh points. As Pro I will be arguing that gun control should be administered in the US. Con has not mentioned any rules, so let me propose my own.
1. No swearing or calling names
2. Arguments and rebuttals are allowed at all times, but no new arguments should be put forth in the last round.

Con has not stated the definition of "gun control" in this debate. Please state it in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1


Gun control is the government deliberately messing with the sale and ownership of guns, which messes with the 2nd amendment. Banning assault rifles or any type of gun will not stop criminals from obtaining them. The black market will always be out there and government cannot stop the black market. However, I do support improved background checks when selling guns to citizens, that may help.


I thank Pro for defining what "gun control" means in this debate. However, he has not stated exactly which guns should be banned. I would like to know, in this debate, how many rounds would cause a gun to be banned. I would also like to ask if the ban covers all people including the military, etc.

Guns are dangerous weapons and only have one purpose-kill.

When guns are easily bought, people can easily get them and use them.
Mark, a boy, gets frustrated with his mother. He soon gets very angry, and remembers that there are guns in the house. He takes a gun and shoots his parents and his younger siblings.
Well, this case is true. Nehemiah Griego was Mark. He used the gun because he was angry and it was convenient.
Imagine a man in debt and also owning a gun.
He decides to rob a supermarket and points the gun at someone at the register. The person at the register attempts to push the alarm button, and out of panic, he shoots him.

My arguments are short due to the word limit
Debate Round No. 2


Mark was most likely mentally messed up. Its the parent's fault for placing their guns in obvious places. If Mark didn't know where they were, then that would have not happened. I am not taking about the government restricting the guns in the military, but to the citizens of the United States of America. Just about every "real" gun can kill. Round limits would not stop criminals from obtaining large magazines, just law-abiding citizens. There was a person(s) in China after sandy hook who killed 33 people using knifes. Like I said, guns cannot do anything without the control of a human being. Remember the story of David and Goliath, David used a sling shot and stone to kill Goliath. Does that mean stones should be banned? Killing is not the only purpose for guns. Guns can be used for hunting. Guns can also be used for sporting such as target practice. They help people develop accuracy and skill. In conclusion, guns are helpful for defense, skills, and hunting game.


"I am not taking about" Grammar mistake
"knifes" spelling mistake

"Does that mean stones should be banned?"
No, have you ever heard of anyone being killed with stones nowadays?

"Round limits would not stop criminals from obtaining large magazines, just law-abiding citizens."
If there were no such magazines in the market, unless the criminal owned a gun factory, it would be impossible.

"There was a person(s) in..."
My opponent has not stated the source so I cannot check it.

"They help people develop accuracy and skill."
Archery can do that too.

I look forward to hearing my opponent's rebuttals. Sorry for the short points but i am restricted by the word limit.
Debate Round No. 3


First, I am sorry about the grammar mistakes, didn't detect them. I know that stones aren't used these days to kill, but stones and guns do have the potential to kill. My point was that should you ban stones just because they have the potential to kill? Limiting magazine sizes wouldn't stop crime, criminals could carry multiple mags in their coats, pockets etc. I know that guns and archery can help people. I was just giving a useful example of why guns are ok for citizens to have. But if you had to face a gang, who would win? You with the bow and arrow, or them with the shotguns, assault weapons, pistols, etc. of course they would. Like I said, guns aren't only meant to kill, they help develop skill and are used for hunting game. In conclusion, taking away guns would leave law abiding citizens defenseless.


"criminals could carry multiple mags in their coats"
Yes, they could, but it take time to reload, which buys time for the victim to defend.

"taking away guns would leave law abiding citizens defenseless"
Again, refer back to the previous round. If no guns were in the market, criminals wouldn't have guns unless they owned a factory.
( This article proves that the point about being 'defenceless without a gun' is wrong.

Vote for Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by tpakey 4 years ago
@Magic8000 I changed the character limit to 8000
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Was going to accept, but debate is limited to 1000 characters.
No votes have been placed for this debate.