The Instigator
BabyishPenguin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
corey561
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should gun laws become stricter? Why?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,276 times Debate No: 29187
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

BabyishPenguin

Con

We have the right to bears arms, but not when it involves children or innocent others! Anyway, if a killer wants to kill people, he doesn't need a gun. If he wants to kill someone, he'll strangle or stab or torture, he doesn't need a gun!
corey561

Pro

"If a killer wants to kill people, he doesn't need a gun. If he wants to kill someone, he'll strangle or stab or torture, he doesn't need a gun!"

Let me start off by stating that stabbing someone or strangling someone is much more difficult than squeezing a trigger. You are much more capable of recovering from a stab wound than a gun wound. By limiting gun control laws, specifically semi-automatic, automatic, and assault rifles, humanity would be much safer. If you are somebody who has a need to protect yourself, you wouldn't need a machine gun. Those should be reserved for the police and military. All you really need is a small gun such as a pistol to protect yourself. Stricter gun laws don't necessarily mean totally eliminating them, but making them harder to receive.

If you are a hunter, and you need to use an AK-47 to take down a deer, it's not really a sport anymore. It's cheating, really. It takes away the challenge of the sport.

By having stricter gun laws, we could feel a bit more safe after dropping our child off to school. Yes, like you said, there are other ways to do harm, but by making gun laws stricter, it will prevent a lot more mass killings in the future.
Debate Round No. 1
BabyishPenguin

Con

I agree that fully automatic guns have no use in public hands, but if a killer wants someone dead, he doesn't need a gun.
corey561

Pro

"I agree that fully automatic guns have no use in public hands"
Therefore, you do want gun laws to become stricter, because as of now, everyday people can have these automatic guns. I do think you just contradicted yourself there.

"if a killer wants someone dead, he doesn't need a gun."
I don't think you're getting my point. Yes, there are other ways to kill people, but if you have a gun it would be much easier. This is the preferred choice in most killers. By limiting the use of guns, there will be less of these because it is a huge inconvenience to bring a knife if you would want to commit a mass killing rather than a powerful gun.
Debate Round No. 2
BabyishPenguin

Con

BabyishPenguin forfeited this round.
corey561

Pro

It seems that con forfeited this round. Unless if he can come up with strong arguments in the following rounds, vote pro!
Debate Round No. 3
BabyishPenguin

Con

BabyishPenguin forfeited this round.
corey561

Pro

It seems that con forfeited this round. Unless if he can come up with strong arguments in the following rounds, vote pro!
Debate Round No. 4
BabyishPenguin

Con

BabyishPenguin forfeited this round.
corey561

Pro

corey561 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dominomac 4 years ago
Dominomac
It seems this debate is over, Con agreed taht fully automatic machine guns should not be in the hands of the public which is currently legal, making that there should be stricter gun laws. I do however agree that it should not go too far and I dont think anyone is talking about damaging the second amendment.
No votes have been placed for this debate.