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

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Greg_L has forfeited round #3.
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: 9/21/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 95548
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Our rights to bear arms are written in the constitution. Whoever wants to challenge me go ahead and write your first argument.


So I will admit I got confused on this challenge. I read this as my opponent being Con against what was stated in his starting argument. However, I have no problem playing devils advocate even if it goes against my own personal beliefs. So I will argue my best in favor of Gun Control Laws and give the best debate possible despite the fact that it is against my personal belief.

Now, that said, gun crime in the US has reached significant levels. Every few days it seems we hear of a new shooting or violent crime involving guns.

In this debate I will argue for multiple proposed gun control laws and attempt to convince my opponent and the readers that these laws are necessary to stem the levels of crime that we have in the States.

1. Ban on assault rifles.
2. Ban on handguns.
3. Requirement for development of "Smart Guns" and technology to enhance safety.
4. Federal and State mandated buy back programs.
5. Increase in background check scrutiny.
6. High capacity magazine bans
7. Ammo bans.
8. Closing loopholes.
9. Limiting concealed and open carry laws
10. Changing castling clauses to eliminate deadly force with firearms and institute duty to run laws
11. And the most controversial, federal confiscation measures.

Those are the points I will be arguing. I will allow my opponent to challenge these points now.
Debate Round No. 1


Glad that you'll argue even if you're on the other side :P

1. Assault rifles are argued to be unnecessary due to modern technology and advancements in the gun industry since the 2nd amendment was put into place. However, we do not have the right to bear arms so that we can defend ourselves from home invaders and criminals, we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves and rebel back against potential tyranny.

2. Handguns are involved in #1 as well, but are easier and more probable for everyday carry outside of your home. They are the most probable weapon for protecting yourself outside of your home, away from your assault rifles.

3. I'm not aware of the specific types of safety enhancing technology, but as long as the gun does not lose its ability to be drawn and fired immediately, I will likely not have a problem with it.

4. I would have no issue with gun buyback programs because I feel they wouldn't have very much effect. People who buy guns are going to keep their guns, with no requirement to sell your guns then I find it unlikely that anyone will with the exception of financial crises.

5. I disagree with further background checks because all it will do it allow the government to easily prohibit certain people from buying guns. They would use very very minor misdemeanors as excuses to keep people from buying guns with the end goal of having few people that own them anymore. The process of background checks would be abused to reach the goal of having less people that own guns.

6. I disagree with high capacity magazine bans because there is no strong need to decrease the amount of ammo that one clip can have. I can see arguments posed with automatic rifles, in which I may agree with a limit on the fire rate of a gun, (Ex. no more than 4 bullets per second), otherwise I see no need for restriction.

7. Ammo bans have no use other than to slowly ban certain guns by banning all of the ammo it could possibly use, a bullet is a bullet, its going to go through you whether its a 40 cal or .556...

8. This is just another attempt at limiting and controlling guns bought by people. Say you closed the gun show loophole, then the government decides to pass a law saying "guns can no longer be shipped in packages due to interceptions by terrorists" and opens a limited amount of gun shops so that people have to drive hundreds of miles to buy guns. See how its now extremely hard for someone to get their hands on a gun? Its a restriction that could have a domino effect, eventually eliminating all ways for people to get guns.

9. There are no reasons to limit gun carrying. Therefore we should not limit open or concealed weapon carrying.

10. Limiting deadly force with guns would essentially be limiting the use of guns to almost 0. In the case that someone else has a gun, and you have a gun, there would be no probable way of disarming them without killing them ESPECIALLY if they are shooting at you and know you are there. Even if you shot both of their legs and they were crawling they would still be able to shoot back at you and kill you. Allowing deadly force is essential to protecting yourself.

11. The government has no right to confiscate anything from its citizens, "by the people for the people" right? More like "by the power hungry, for the power hungry". Confiscating guns would only give the government extreme and high power and would likely end in a dictatorship, what is a country that can't fight off its own government if the need arose?


1. So let me ask you this, will an automatic rifle, (i.e. M16, AK47, MP5, etc), be the deciding factor in a fight against a fully trained standing army, plus reserves, plus National Guard? Would they win the fight against jets, tanks, artillery, etc? You can argue mass numbers would overpower the estimated 2-3million in the military active and reserve, however, as many wars overseas have shown, a small force of well trained operatives can easily bring down a numerous foe. So what purpose do assault rifles serve?

2. You stated in your first point that the 2nd Amendment does not protect your right to defend yourself from home invaders and criminals, so what purpose does a handgun serve in public? The rare chance that a revolution will erupt while you're shopping at Wal-Mart?

3. Technology includes fingerprint recognition on the trigger guard and other methods of making firearms safe from stealing. Currently, the reason there is minimal progress on it is due to New Jersey, which has stated that if any guns go on the market that have smart technology, then all guns in New Jersey must have it. As such, gun manufacturers have avoided development. This is something that needs to be reversed or enforced from a federal level to ensure safety of firearms.

4. At least we "agree" on the buy backs. However, I think it should be mandated for weapons that are meant for home defense and serve no sporting need, as you stated above, the Constitution does not cover home defense. No need to own a pistol grip Mossberg 500 for duck hunting.

5. If the stipulations are made clear then background checks work. Further, as it stands right now, the check system is a failure. The Sandy Hook shooter came up as an "optional" in the system to buy a gun, he was given the gun 3 days later and 5 days later was flagged as a "Do not sell" but he already committed the crime. We need to increase waiting periods to cover however long it takes to complete a check properly to prevent this crime.

6. As for magazines, there are plenty of reasons, carrying magazines (which by the way is the proper name, not "clip" which is a Hollywood botching of proper terminology) can get heavy, Ever try to move around with 10 magazines with 10 rounds each vs 5 magazines with 20 rounds each? It's much easier with the latter. Reloading less often giving less opportunity to end the assault.

7. Actually the sentiment that a bullet is a bullet is a false statement otherwise we wouldn't have different rounds. A .50cal will make a head explode. A 25mm will cause small irritation. There's a reason millions of dollars go to investing in research on stopping power for the military and why they choose certain rounds for certain reasons. Some rounds can be stopped by walls, some can punch through increasing casualties in a mass shooting or stray bullets. Some can pierce ballistics vests that police wear. No civillian needs armor piercing rounds that can take out police with vests.

8. The constitution does not grant the right to purchase a firearm, only to keep and bear. Restricting it to sale directly from the manufacturer or from a single one story building in Wyoming is not against the law or the constitution.

9. There are reasons, untrained, unskilled civillians going all vigilante and dirty Harry on the public. Even someone that regularly practices doesn't have the skill of a trained police officer or soldier. I think it should be restricted to those professionally trained only to be allowed to carry in public.

10. You stated at the beginning that home defense is not a protected right. Just because someone is breaking in doesn't mean they deserve the death penalty for their actions. If you have a legitimate means of escape you should take it and be required to take it. The police are there for a reason.

11. The government has many rights to confiscate. Ever hear of eminent domain? England did it and look at their hand gun crime rates?

((((I feel dirty having to argue this side.))))
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Greg_L 2 years ago
No, the topic is gun control laws, I'm on the side of against, so that means I'm against gun control laws.
Posted by TheBenC 2 years ago
TheBenC made this to argue against gun owners?
This debate has 0 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.