The Instigator
Lonewolfunrol
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
F0102439
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Will 'Gun Control Laws' Really Help?

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 3 votes the winner is...
F0102439
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,321 times Debate No: 29865
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Lonewolfunrol

Con

I believe that simply saying that guns aren't allowed will NOT help at all. It would have the same affect as with saying that marijuana is illegal, yet people in the thousands still use it daily. Just because you make firearms illegal to law-abiding citizens [who would need said firearms to protect their household in case of robbery or some sort of crime against them], doesn't mean that said firearms will leave the streets. Whether or not it's legal has no use when it comes to gangs and criminals.
F0102439

Pro

I believe that making guns under control will greatly benefit society. For example, stores that sell firearms would have to do a background check on the said person. Police would also benefit from these laws because they would be exempt from the gun control laws, which in turn would make it easier to capture the said criminal. Here is quote of what happens when you allow guns into normal society "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future"! - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

We should all know what happened to Germany when gun control was not enforced. The exact opposite of what Adolph Hitler stated what would happen.
Debate Round No. 1
Lonewolfunrol

Con

This is very true in what happened with Hitler.

But, answer this for me, my friend.
If someone broke into your house with an illegal firearm... What would/could you do if you had nothing to defend yourself? I don't think you could easily defend yourself with something when someone has you in their iron sightings.

Without firearms for us, how are we to protect ourselves?
How about, instead of making firearms illegal, the government released a law that one should pass a certain test before being allowed to wield a firearm?
That way people would probably be happier.
F0102439

Pro

You stated that, "Without firearms for us, how are we to protect ourselves"? There are more ways than one to protect ourselves. For example, one could install a security system for their home. Another is that we could use a not so deadly weapon such as a tazer or a knife instead of rapid fire firearms, which would kill more people. You also stated that "government released a law that one should pass a certain test before being allowed to wield a firearm", answer me this, would it not make it harder for the average citizen to acquire the said protection if there was a test. Would taking a test, to determine if you are eligible to wield a firearm, make people happy? No, it would get them killed.
Debate Round No. 2
Lonewolfunrol

Con

We have the same chance of getting killed by walking down the street or going to the doctor as when handling a firearm when properly trained. Can you honestly tell me that every person in the United States should not be allowed to have firearms? Hunting and shooting is an American pastime, famous with many people. Do you really think it's right to reverse the fourth amendment and ban firearms?
F0102439

Pro

You stated that, I think every citizen in the U.S. should not be allowed to have firearms. However, in round 1 I stated that police and the military should be the only ones allowed to carry a firearm. Also, I am not stating that we should completely ban firearms, I am stating that we should only have them in our homes for self-defense. You stated that," Do you really think it's right to reverse the fourth amendment and ban firearms"? However do you realize the fourth amendment is only for searches and seizures, not for banning firearms? Therefore your argument is invalid.
Debate Round No. 3
Lonewolfunrol

Con

You win my friend. I used incorrect information and thus rendered my argument invalid.

Good debate.
F0102439

Pro

Well it was a good debate. Research a little more next time and will do fine.
Debate Round No. 4
Lonewolfunrol

Con

Thanks man, you and me will make a good team for our debate class. Here's to fruitful research, my brother.
F0102439

Pro

Indeed it will my friend. Good luck to me and you.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Lonewolfunrol 4 years ago
Lonewolfunrol
Thanks for the info! Me and my buddy are in a debate class together and this is my second debate, I'm still really new to it! I'll keep in mind what you said!
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Pro, in turn, missed a good opportunity in round two. "How about, instead of making firearms illegal, the government released a law that one should pass a certain test before being allowed to wield a firearm?" Con's suggestion is, in fact, a form of gun control.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Con conceded, so arguments to Pro. "You win my friend. I used incorrect information and thus rendered my argument invalid." -- FYI, making an error about which ammendment protects something is a poor reason to concede. A simple, "Sorry, I meant the fifth ammendment. I re-instate my argument." would've sufficed and kept you in the game.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
LonewolfunrolF0102439Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I must reluctantly give my vote to Pro, while I disagreed with his arguments, con conceded. I hope con's opinion on the matter was not changed. This was a very amateur debate by both sides, neither used sources, and neither made a good point.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
LonewolfunrolF0102439Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
LonewolfunrolF0102439Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded. My change of opinion on the matter (my first two votes, the ones with no point value attached) does not stem from this debate, but rather something I read this morning. Pro's arguments did not sway my opinion in the slightest, and I do think that gun bans are detrimental to society, but a certain level of gun control is both necessary and helpful. However, I think the level of gun control in this country exceeds that mark.