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

Companies should have the power to restrict gun sales to people based on age.

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
CluelessDatabase 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: 3/7/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 407 times Debate No: 110367
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Following the recent tragedy in Florida, companies such as Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods have enacted policies that restrict the sale of firearms to those under the age of 21. I firmly believe that not only are the policies unjust, but they are in fact illegal in some states.

I ask for a challenger that believes these policies should stand, and that restricting guns to those under 21 is fair and necessary. I do however wish to keep this debate organized and set the following rules:

1) We must follow all guidelines and rules set by
2) We must follow the following format of for the debate's rounds:

Round 1 is for accepting the debate. You may state a general opinion on the topic of you wish and explain why you believe it is true, but you may not post any facts or data at this time.
Rounds 2, 3, and 4 will all consist of the argument. We post why our stance the topic is correct. Data and links are not required, but are highly recommend.
Round 5 will be our closing arguments. We will reaffirm our stance on the topic and agree not to argue why the other person is wrong.

3) We will remain civil at all times. This is a debate and not a lunch table argument.

I look forward to my opponent for this debate and wish them the best of luck.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and apologize for the long wait.

I first would like to reiterate that this is not a second amendment issue, but instead a legality and morality issue associated with companies setting arbitrary age limits on the purchase of firearms

I have decided to address the legally issue first in this debate. With that, I will call the case into question: a 20 year old male who attempted to purchase a firearm from Walmart and/or Dick's Sporting Goods, both chain retaliation who have recently enacted policies raising the sale age of firearms to 21 and older (
The man, named Tyler Watson, is a victim of "discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited." This a law in Oregon that any resident "accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges" equally amongst "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age." Take note to the word age and facilities. Essentially stores who offer services (facilities) to a consumer must grant all services of that store to anyone of all ages defined by the state.
The law: (
The explanation: (
Minimum age to by a gun in Oregon:(

In terms of the law, Watson is clearly in the right. Oregon law allows the sale of a firearm to an individual of 18 years of age, but this policy is raising the age of purchase to 21, clearly violating the law. The types of anti-discriminatory laws not only exist in Oregon, but also exist in about one third of the nation's states. Companies can not make these arbitrary age limits, at the very least within these states.

I look forward to my opponent's data as well as the next round, where I plan to address morality behind why these age policies are unnecessary and unjust.
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
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Sorry for misunderstanding your argument though I still disagree this is ageism.
Posted by Arganger 3 years ago
So... I'm the only one agreeing with JOHNNYB2K15 here?
Posted by JOHNNYB2K15 3 years ago
For some clarification to readers, this will not be a, "the policy is illegal therefore I'm right" debate. I will use morality and reasons with this age group should have the power to buy a gun. I thought I'd also clarify my ideas. When I firmly believe these policies are "unjust," I raised the morality issue of stores having the power to arbitrarily set an age to purchase a gun. I plan to go into that in my debate as well. But here are some general ideas I hold:

I'm not saying we should give everyone guns. This is just incredibly irresponsible. Only those who have passed legal background checks (which need to be strengthen in my opinion) should be giving guns.

I don't propose we lower the smoking and drinking age. Both substances harm brain maturity, but no studies say guns have harmed brain maturity.

This is not a second amendment issue, this is an age discrimination problem.
Thank you.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
So by your logic the drinking age should be lower, and tobacco used should be lower too. You want the states and our country to do nothing against gun control right? You think the status quo is working on gun control? Has the mass shootings Gone worst in the last 20 years or better?
Posted by pi3.14 3 years ago
He did not say that he wanted to give guns to everyone. You are severly twisting his words.
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Sigh, another person who wants to give guns to everyone no matter what.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
I'll consider this more seriously if you elaborate a bit on one thing - You stated that "I firmly believe that not only are the policies unjust, but they are in fact illegal in some states." This should not be a legal/illegal debate, but a "morally just" debate, as anyone can say "it's illegal, therefore it shouldn't happen because you're breaking the law."

So if your arguments will NOT be based on the current legalities surrounding the current law, I'll consider this. Obviously comparisons to other laws work, I'm just saying "it's illegal, therefore I'm right" shouldn't really be used as an argument.
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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.