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

Guns should have stricter restrictions

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Javeh has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 248 times Debate No: 94943
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




"We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?" -President Barack Obama in his speech after the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon

R1: Pro makes rules and defines terms / Con makes opening arguments
R2: Pro makes opening arguments / Con begins rebuttals
R3: Pro rebuts Con's arguments / Con defends arguments and finalizes with his/her concluding statement
R4: Pro defends arguments and concludes / Con waives

- Misconduct will lead to automatic loss
- Refrain from profanity / vile language
-There is no forfeiting
- Don't be a jerk, ok?


I'd like to remind you that we live in a police state. If I were to Google how build a bomb and start accessing radical Islamic terrorism websites I'm sure someone would take notice. However, I could still buy a gun and go shoot at a crowd. That's bad, so what has our congress proposed to stop this? (Specifically the left) I recall after the Orlando shooting there was a large sit in on the house floor, in support of a bill that would allow the FBI to block gun sales in the same way that there is a no fly list. The problem with both of these is that there is no due process. In theory the FBI or any other agency could just put a large number of people on their list and suspend their 2nd amendment rights. If I were to commit a crime and were on parole. But in order to get on parole I have to be arrested, go to court, be incarcerated and then released. I'll end my argument with a quote as well. "Hitler took the guns. Mao took the guns. Stalin took the guns. Fidel Castro took the guns. And I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!" -Alex Jones debating Piers Morgan
Debate Round No. 1


According the nonprofit project, The Gun Violence Archive, there have been a grand total of 301,797 firearm-related deaths in the past decade, compared to 71 deaths from domestic acts of terrorism in the United States.

Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior. In 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every "justifiable homicide"). Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm.

So, yes, you could theoretically withhold the 2nd Amendment right of many people who have already committed crimes, but they aren't the only ones who could commit a murder (or more multiple). The people who could commit such a terrible act are people who own assault rifles, military grade weapons, and weapons bought for the intent of "self defense".

America is (for the most part) a country of peace and prosperity. We are not a country that is engaged in war on our own territory, and we are not a country that is without a justice and protection system. So to own weapons of mass murder is completely uncalled for and unwarranted.

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

There is no need for an American citizen to own a gun that can mow down a massive number of people at a time, nor do they need to own an assault rifle. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns, and can alert others of a possible mental disorder.

In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers are not allowed to carry guns, and their population is not allowed to own guns (other than for hunting). If a country that is as advanced, if not more advanced, than we are has banned their guns with no problems, then why can't the United States.

Gun laws should be tightened and guns used for anything other than recreational hunting should be banned.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheBenC 2 months ago
People have no need for guns? HA!

I don't know if it is true but I found a stat that says women alone use guns 200,000 times every year to prevent sexual assault, whether they fired them or just brandished them. I also found that every year 1.5 million people use guns to defend themselves. Another place said it was 2.5 million times a year.

You hear news about how someone used a gun in a bad way. Using a gun to defend yourself never makes the news especially when you aim it at a rapist and they run away without a shot fired.

I found another stat that said guns are 80x more likely to save a life than to take a life, meaning people use their guns to save lives 80 times as often as criminals use guns to kill someone.

You only see news about mass killings. You never see news about the armed citizen who shot a mass murderer before he went on his killing spree. Why is that?

Even the lowest statistics (from Harvard) say that 80,000 people every year use a gun to defend themselves from criminals! That is from Harvard (anti-gun people) and the lowest they can come up with!

Wake the hell up! Gun laws never stop criminals (who disobey these laws by definition) from hurting anyone.
Posted by Radical_Spaghetti 2 months ago
During the Enlightenment, John Locke proposed the theory that a people should be able to rebel if their country is corrupt and unjust... The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That statement can be interpreted many different ways, and the way you described is one of the ways it has been interpreted. But, that statement was created over 200 years ago, in a time when another country could sail over, attack, and take over our land. In modern days, that is nearly impossible. Our army is the largest volunteer army in the world. So there is no need for a militia, and thus, we as American people should not need to posses guns.

Technically it says nowhere in the constitution that we have the right to oppose our government. That was a theory that influenced the constitution...

One more thing, I don't understand in what world our own government would turn against us and raid our homes (I'm very confused about that). Plus the chances of the government doing such a thing are absolutely minuscule.

I'd like you to go to this website, and read how many shootings there have been in 2015 alone:

These things continue to happen because people own weapons of mass murder, in a country where there is no need.

Does anyone remember Sandy Hook Elementary?
A school... Full of little children... Shot mercilessly...

Can you explain to me how in God's name those kids deserved to die?
Posted by Killerchicken12 2 months ago
Pro Forgets that the whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure the Citizens could check the Government. Our Founding Fathers told us that it is OUR RIGHT to Rebel against a Power of Tyranny. How are we to Rebel, or at least stop a Government from invading our Homes (God Forbid) if the Government has assault Rifles, Grenade Launchers, Airplanes, and Artillery, and all we have are dingy Shot guns, and agencies working to lower the amount of Citizens able to defend themselves not only against theft, but arguably more importantly against Government, as was intended.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.