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

Is strengthening gun control laws necessay

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: 1/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,450 times Debate No: 29743
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




More gun control is absolutely necessary in today's society and is not a violation of the second amendment. People should be allowed to own a guns for self-defense and hunting purposes, but you don"t go hunting or defend your house with a modified assault riffle unless your street is being invaded by Turkish Rebels and you don't use 30 rounds either when you are hunting. It is not necessary for an ordinary citizen to have weapons of such force, with the potential to do so much harm, and you don't need a high caliber magazine to defend your home or hunt with. If you can't hit what you are shooting at with less than 5 bullets you don't have business owning a gun.
Stricter laws on whom and how quickly you can get a gun are needed dearly today. There needs to be a federally mandated waiting period of all gun purchases, both private and retail, as well are much more in depth background checks including a physiological test. I should not be allowed to walk into a gun store give them my drivers license and have a gun that day or even later that week. Why do you need it so quickly? Is there some kind of rush to have it now? If you plan on hunting this season go do all of your gun purchases and background checks a month before. As far as psychological testing, it should be required neither you nor anyone living with you has any mental disorders or history of psychotic behavior. Now you say everyone has a right to own a gun. No. Not everyone has every right. People who are felons, even for nonviolent crimes can't vote. Do we say this is unfair? No, even though it is totally unrelated to their knowledge about government and say in what happens in the country they're living. Government's job is to protect the general welfare of the people and keeping people from killing each other is a big part of that. Now we could put an army division on every street in American (at your cost), to ensure that you are safe, and let you have whatever guns you want. That is obviously not practical, so you say just arm everyone. Okay, I don't want to carry a gun all the time and feel like at any day I might have to defend myself with it cause someone in a bar got drunk and pissed and started shooting. This is the 21st century and we can't let it turn into the Wild West all over again.


We don't need gun control. Any gun control is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment, as it clearly states, "The Right of the People to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed". The 2nd Amendment isn't there for hunting ducks. It's there to protect the people against a tyrannical government. You could argue that they didn't have full-autos back then, but neither did the military. The citizens had access to the same kind of muskets that the military did, therefore, they were just as powerful as the military. Oh sure, you say the legal mag capacity should be 5 bullets, yet the military has guns that can fire 6000 rounds a minute without reloading. You should take heed of the old saying, "But who will watch the watchmen?"

A waiting period for guns? What would that do? Anybody with the will to kill a bunch of people doesn't care about a waiting period. A one-time psychological test wouldn't hurt, but with a drivers license, all of your background information be accessed instantly! Why would you need to wait any longer than the time needed to obtain that info.?

As for the massacres, look at Japan! There are school mass murders committed with knives over there! They outlawed guns in England, yet people are burning down London! According to FBI statistics(, violent crime has been going down in the last decade, while gun sales have gone up. While America has more gun crime, overall crime has actually been lowering. Look at Switzerland! Barely any gun control, yet one of the safest places in the world. Outlawing the powerful guns would make a criminal gun-smuggling industry rise up, just like with Prohibition nearly a century ago as well as drugs today.This will allow criminals to obtain them while leaving law-abiding citizens powerless to stop them.

Lastly, just because you don't want to feel like you have to defend yourself doesn't change the reality that you do. If we outlaw guns, criminals will not feel threatened and you will need guns more than ever.
Debate Round No. 1


I will first start by addressing your issue of allowing the citizens to arm themselves to the same extent as the government to protect themselves against it. If every citizen was allowed to buy every piece of military hardware the government has we would have a continuous civil war going on. The guy does like the winner of an election and launches a few artillery rounds at the white house. I realize this example is extreme, but so is your claim that there should be no limits on gun and weapon control. You said, "You could argue that they didn't have full-autos back then, but neither did the military." Well the government has nuclear bombs (which only a small number of countries possess) but like you said we should be able to defend yourself against the government on equal grounds. Well the government has chains of command and they do not randomly go crazy and massacre people in the streets or kill citizens on a daily basis. Now I"m not saying the government might not become oppressive in the future, but this would be exceedingly hard under the present constitution and they don"t shoot people daily because they don"t like what side of the town you live on. Imagine if every gun crime was done with a mini gun, like you talked about. Gang battles would evolve to wars. Whenever someone got mad they could just nuke Washington. Sure they would have to suffer the consequences for the millions of people just killed, but they still killed millions of people. It"s the government"s job to protect the welfare of society and they cannot do that if the citizens processed the same weapons as they did in the off chance, one day in the future, the government was oppressing them. Citizens do not have the right to make a military which is what you would be allowing if you give them the same weapons as the government.
N.A.T.O. is the person who watches the watchmen. It"s pretty simple. When there is something wrong in another country N.A.T.O. votes whether it"s wrong and if it should help. They have put down many tyrannical governments throughout history, which is their purpose.
Mandatory waiting periods will stop rash decision, in the heat of the moment. If the person is forced to wait a week before killing his mom there might be a change in thought, where rational thought is reacquired.
You specifically said in your argument that gun sales and gun crime is going up. If you ask me and pretty much every person in the world if they see a correlation there they will say yes. You say overall crime is going down, that"s good, but I"d rather someone steal my car then shoot me. There are more guns and more gun crime. There is a positive correlation there. Now, theoretically if there were significantly fewer guns there, most likely, would be less gun crime. It doesn"t take a rocket scientist to understand that more guns equal more gun crime and more gun violence.


N.A.T.O will not do anything at all, because our nation has the most powerful, well funded military in the world, and representatives in NATO will, not surprisingly, have their own nations interests at heart and mind.

As for your argument that the citizens do not have the right to their own military, look no further than the second amendment. "The right to a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free state, the Right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed." Don't pull out that National Guard crap on me, because well regulated does not mean government controlled, it means well trained and well armed. That is why it explicitly says "a Free state" without specifically naming the U.S, because the founding fathers wanted the citizens to fight back if the government ever became tyrannical. They had just overthrew a tyrannical government, after all. English troops were burning down their homes, quartering their soldiers, and the people were powerless to stop them. U.S would've never become independent.s, and the people did not have arms to defend themselves. We're lucky that they started making some arms, or the You say that the only reason that you would need a modified assault rifle is defend your house from an army. Well how about our own military? Like you said, we don't want the army patrolling our streets, but who's going to stop them if the citizens don't have arms?

I'm all for a one-time psychological test on potential gun-owners, as well as an accessible database of mentally unstable people, so I can't disagree with you their. And if we have that psychological test, why would we need the waiting period? you say a rational person might decide not to kill their mother within that week, but I say a rational person wouldn't want to kill their mother at all, and with the psychological test, we already know who's rational and who isn't.

You seem to focus on the factoid that more guns means more gun crime, yet you fail to look at the big picture that more guns means less violent crime. If you make guns illegal, it'll be just like drugs. Huge gun smuggling cartels will open up, and the sellers won't care who buys them, whether they are kids, felons, whatever. Same with prohibition, same with weed, and it'll be the same with guns. Law-abiding citizens won't have any way to defend themselves, and criminals will run amok, doing as they please. Can't count on the police, because,
on average, it takes the police twenty minutes to arrive. Enough time for a murder or two?

You tell me that not everyone has every right. You say that felons who commit non-violent crimes are not allowed to vote. Do you condone this? I thought you said it was impossible for the government to be tyrannical because of the Constitution, yet we have an example of mistreatment given from yourself. This is contradictory, and contradicting yourself is usually one of the main signs that you don't know what you're talking about.
Debate Round No. 2


N.A.T.O. doesn't want America in a civil war they will step in. It would create a collapse of the global economy.

A well regulated malitia is meant to be state coontrolled to put down uprisings and if the state deems the federal government infridging on their rights they can wage war against them. Also it says in the constitution that only the federal government is allowed to have an army. State police are your malitia.

You can't be serious that you don't see the correlatin between more guns= more gun crimes. Which is what in this argument we are trying to say needs to stop so the government should step in. A country can't allow uncontrollable weapons in the hands of mentally unstable people. It's ot everyone's right to have every liberty. People originally needed guns to hunt and maybe stand up to the government and protect against indians. Everyone had muskets. You can't give everyone gun ships if they learn to fly. It isn't in societies best interest. The constitutions meaning is meant to evolve over time and it needs more gun regulations. You don't get to possess every weapon you want but you can keep your shot guns and such.

If you make gun laws much harsher to the point if you have a gun and sell it privately you need to have checks done on that person or you bare the same responsiblity as them for any crimes committed. I think this would wake up people about who is getting their guns. They need to be tracked and monitored. end of story.


N.A.T.O will intervene because they don't want the U.S in a Civil War

This may be true, but they will probably intervene on the tyrannical militaries side, because, after all, we do have the most powerful military in the world. Then then the citizens will need guns more than ever, and gun control will prevent them from defending their freedom.

Militia is meant to be state controlled
I refute this argument on grounds of irrelevance. Voters, do not let this confuse or distract you, for even if I concede this (which I don't), it would mean nothing, because this debate is about gun control. The part of the second amendment that is not up for any interpretation blatantly says "The right of the People to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed"

More guns means more gun crime
I've already openly acknowledged this fact. However, what you refuse to acknowledge or even debate about is the fact that more guns means less violent crime, while less guns means more. Switzerland is armed to the teeth, yet it is a very safe place to live. Even Hitler, the man who invaded Russia in the winter, didn't invade Switzerland because he knew that the citizens were armed to the teeth. This applies to the N.A.T.O argument as well. Ignoring facts is yet another sign that you don't know what your talking about.

Psychological testing and Waiting Periods
" A country can't allow uncontrollable weapons in the hands of mentally unstable people." How many times do I have to tell you that I agree to a one-time psychological test before you will quit repeating the same argument with different wording without attempting to refute mine? My argument has been that if you have already used a psychological test to determine that that person is rational, why would you need a waiting period at all if you've already weeded out anyone crazy enough to kill somebody? This argument has been ignored entirely by you.

Muskets were only used for defense against Indians, Hunting, and standing up to the government
Indians were breaking into their homes and farms, stealing their property, and possibly getting violent... wait, doesn't that sound like a criminal today? I concede that you don't need a full-auto to hunt, but you just admitted that they needed guns to stand up to the government. Isn't that one of the main points I've been trying to make throughout the debate? You just conceded to one of my strongest points.

Citizens should not have all of the weapons of the military
No, but they should have enough firepower to obtain said weapons should the need arise. Note that I say that they should only have the ability to get the weapons if they are a very large group, not just a few crazy teenagers.

I've agreed to one method of gun control , and refuted any argument for stricter gun control. You have repeated the same argument, made a new argument in the last round, and have failed to refute any relevant arguments of mine. I have obviously won this debate, good luck next time.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ant90h 3 years ago
The Pro does not have his/her facts straight. For example; discussing full-automatic machine guns in the context of expanding on gun control would mean this person does not know full-autos have been heavily regulated since prohibition era and were effectively banned in 1986. Furthermore, there are only 2 known instances of legally owned full-autos being used in a crime.

How can someone be qualified to debate this subject with such confusion about the fundamentals?
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BigSky 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had excellent points, but con had a source.