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

Stricter gun control laws

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2014 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 514 times Debate No: 65027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Guns are a major problem in the US. People believe that more guns will save you. That is not the case. They can be stolen easily, especially by kids, if stored in the house and its just dangerous. I don't know why people are so in favor of guns. They are dangerous and bad. They say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." That's just dumb. Yes the person used a gun to kill someone but a gun was still the weapon. It still killed someone. Our country needs very strict gun control laws. Massachusetts has some of the strictest laws in the country and you almost never hear about incidents with guns there. My family shouldn't have to be scared every time I go to school wondering if they will ever see me again, wondering if today is that one day, that one school that happens to have a student open fire. They shouldn't have to be scared for my safety. I should be able to go get an education without the fear of "What if today its my school?" There are some crazies out there.


Guns are certainly a major social issue in the United States however they are often abused by the insane and criminals; thus, it gives the wrong impression that guns do not protect humans. In fact, they are quite the opposite of what many people assume. Stricter gun control laws are not necessary to moderate guns because they only promote the illegal use of guns; only certain minorities will use guns in unethical/illegal ways; and there are many benefits that come along with passive gun laws.

Prohibiting or limiting the use of guns will only make gun users want to use them even more. Just as parents trying to limit an activity will only make children become addicted, so will with guns. As humans are wired to be curious and become addicted to things that are purposely limited to them, it will only make matters worse as gun owners will attempt to use guns even more with such laws. This has been proven throughout history as anything banned by the government would only make them be used even more by the people.

Only certain evil or crazy people will use guns. Instead of trying to limit gun use, the government should only try to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. They should create laws that are fair and only limit those that are crazy/evil, such as requiring a gun license and attendance at certified gun training facilities to purchase a gun. As opponent said, only the insane and evil abuse such a privilege, so the government should only make laws to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

There are also many benefits that come along with using guns as a citizen. You can use it to protect your own or others' lives when there are criminals or crazy people that have illegally purchased guns to kill people. You can use it as self-defense against not just people but with animals and with objects in certain situations. Having a gun also makes you feel safe in case your country gets invaded; that's the reason why Japan never invaded U.S. in WWII.
Debate Round No. 1


I see what you are saying and I understand where you are coming from and how you may think that stricter gun laws will cause people to want to abuse them. I disagree with you. If there are laws that actually prevent people from getting their hands on guns, there will be nothing for them to abuse. There needs to be mental health tests, drug tests, background checks, everything that a person should be required to take before being able to buy a gun. I don't think that people shouldn't be able to own guns at all. If someone wants a gun for hunting purposes or they are a cop or something like that, I obviously don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with psychos and people with mental illness being able to get their hands on a gun and able to put my life in danger. Strict gun laws are the only answer to protecting our public. If everyone is allowed to carry a gun there will be anarchy. Think about it. Say you buy a gun and you store it safely in your house, in a locked box, taken apart so its safe. Imagine someone breaks in when you are there. You will not have enough time to go wherever you keep your gun stored safely, put it together, put the bullets in and defend yourself. You will not have enough time. And that gun is in your name. If it gets stolen and a crime is committed with it, it is in your name. You are responsible. Open carry laws are unethical.


You disagree with me that I am wrong with stricter gun laws forcing people to abuse it even further. Yet you contradict yourself by stating in a few sentences later that they should not be as strict and only do so towards the mentally insane and evil, which I have stated to refute your arguments so you are partially agreeing with your opponent? Also, there has been many events in history where this was true - alcohol prohibition in the 1920's and video game ban in China. Guess what happened - people drank alcohol and played video games even more illegally.

I agree that guns should not be owned by everybody, but if they are mature and responsible enough to not use it for criminal activity, then why not? You state that again you only want psychos and criminals to not have guns, yet you stated earlier that all should not have guns. Opponent appears to be contradicting themselves and constantly changes their stance of gun control. That is what I have said; put stricter laws only on psychos and criminals, and not on common citizens - you agree and disagree with me at once. I think you need to re-word your arguments so that they will not be used to opponent's advantage.

Opponent says if all are allowed to have guns, that would ensue total chaos. Yet opponent keeps going back and forth, stating that only psychos and criminals should not have guns, then state otherwise. What are you trying to argue? Which side are you on? Please make it more clearer in the final round in order to understand what you are stating for opponent and voters' sake. Opponent then attempts to clarify things a bit by giving an example, but that example itself is flawed and hard to comprehend. How does making guns responsible for one person even if others use it related to gun control? Your example was great until the end; instead of that, opponent should have stated the obvious: that that person would have died for keeping the gun safe.
Debate Round No. 2


You are completely misunderstanding me. I meant at a minimum there should be tests administered before people are allowed to buy guns to ensure mental stability. I DO NOT in any way agree with your opinion.

I never said it should be illegal. I said there should be stricter laws to protect people. In the south, businesses who allowed people to open carry lost business because so many of their customers were afraid of being shot because some people were "practicing their second amendment rights." I'm not wording my arguments to your advantage.

If people are allowed to open carry, we won't be safer. There will be more violence and more crime. I don't know where you people get the idea that more guns equals more safety. It doesn't. There was a man who was practicing his right to open carry and had his gun stolen from him. At gun point. Do you really think that if "regular citizens" and people who are considered sane are allowed to own whatever guns they want people will be safer? Do you really think that the number of school shootings will decrease? Do you really think that some kid who decides he wants to hurt someone won't take his father's gun? Do you really think people are safer like that? I'm sorry, but the illusion that society will be safer if more people are allowed to own/open carry guns is just that. An illusion. I don't want to live in a place where my family is wary when they say goodbye in the mornings going to school, not knowing if maybe today is the day its my school. I don't want to go to a movie theater and think maybe someone will decide to bring their gun today. I'm sorry but that is not a safe society.


Shrek_sDrecKid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
Like I have said before. If you want to cut down on crime. Get rid of gun free zones.Police are not first responders, the victim is.
Posted by tyleremery2383 1 year ago
Three comments in one:

1. One word. Prohibition. During the alcohol prohibition period in the '20s, alcohol consumption actually rose to record levels. With all the controversy over gun control laws in recent years, do you really think it would be any different? It would probably be much worse.

2. I saw a movie where only the police and military had guns. It was called Schindler's List.

3. Guns don't kill people. People who don't value human life kill people.
Posted by Glitch_brown 1 year ago
sjrrj if the government passed the law to get reed of all gun in the public the people would go ballistic and there would be a massive civil war and most likely the military would not do anything because im sure they would not want there guns gone and then we would take over the government and it would not work.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needs to make it clear exactly what she's arguing for in round 1. Arguments were extremely weak on both sides and with pro having BOP I should probably give con argument points. I'll come back and vote on arguments later if I feel like I can make a better decision, which is more clear. For now pro gets conduct points for the forfeit. For future reference both sides should cite their facts and stay away from making bare assertions without providing evidence for them.