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

Gun Control for Semi-Automatic Rifles

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
TheLibertarianMonarchist 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: 2/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 469 times Debate No: 108197
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Very original topic, I know. I wish to bring up the point that weapons, like most other tools, are built to serve a purpose and make tasks easier to perform. Firearms are built specifically to kill, injure, or otherwise incapacitate a target, be that for hunting, warfighting, or self-defense. Specific guns serve as specialized tools for specialized purposes: handguns for self defense, rifles and shotguns for hunting, and all can be used in warfare as weapons against enemy combatants.

By that logic, firearms should be distributed to be used for their specific purpose. The purpose of semi-automatic and automatic weapons is to put multiple targets down at long range as quickly as possible. They are built to be lethal and easy to use, using more powerful ammunition than a handgun while being easier to fire and maintain accuracy with. Therefore, their place rests with people who need a weapon capable of those things. I see no reason why any civilian would reasonably need access to this type of tool.


When you talk about a thing like gun control you need to realize that its not about guns in gun control, it's about control. Look at most totalitarian or otherwise "evil" regimes that exist or have existed and you will notice that most if not all have either completely disarmed or are disarming their population. They do this because when a people have no weaponry to fight back or to stand up for themselves they not only loss hope and grow more fearful by the day but revolt and civil disobedience become increasingly harder to accomplish or maintain thereby keeping the tyrant in a continuous place of power and authority and allows him to seize more and more power, more and more freedoms, more and more information, and more and more rights. There is a quote: "When the citizens fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the citizens there is liberty" which has some grain of truth as seen with my previous points. The people in power, They want to take away guns not because they wish and care for their people to be safe but because they want to erase another variable, another possible risk to the status quo that might remove them from those places of power. When we give away our guns, we are not getting safety, we are losing both safety and liberty. As Benjamin Franklin once said "A man who wishes to trade some of his liberty for safety will loss both and gain none"
Debate Round No. 1


I would not have the audacity to suggest that we prevent the citizens of America from possessing firearms in general. After all, the ability to defend oneself should never be taken away. The key is to find a balance between ensuring that we can defend ourselves, and ensuring that we are in an environment in which that doesn't need to happen. Handguns and non semi-automatic rifles are more than enough to provide citizens with the ability to defend themselves from all manner of threats. Should the government ask that we give up all types of weapons I think we would genuinely have an uprising on our hands, but that is not my argument. My argument is that semi-automatic rifles are particularly destructive in the wrong hands, and are not very practical for self-defense purposes.

As for defending against the government should it become tyrannical, I'm afraid our first and last line of defense would be our state-owned militia, the National Guard. Should the federal government become so corrupt as to be reduced to tyranny, the idea is that the states would be able to resist the federal system, keeping a strong line of defense against abuse of federal power and allowing the states a certain level of military power to resist federal powers if need be. Should the National Guard fail in this duty to defend the states, then responsibility would fall to the citizens. Now, in the days that the Constitution was first written, an organized militia of armed men would be able to resist occupation effectively because of the technology of the time. There were no tanks, no helicopters, no proper artillery, and certainly no ballistic missiles. There are now, and unless we as citizens have the means to counter these advanced threats, which will never be the case, than we cannot even hope to make a dent in federal forces with mere small arms.

So, we rely on our National Guard to defend us from federal tyranny, which may not seem like a great option, but it is about the only one we have. A better way to fight government corruption, would be for the citizens of the US to take a greater role in our democracy, and to push for more transparency throughout the federal level.

In conclusion, I state that semi-automatic rifles would not give us the means to effectively resist a hypothetical tyrannical government, and that we should instead be more active in our current government to keep it a democracy. I push that semi-automatic rifles should not be handled by private citizens (due to their destructive potential towards soft targets), but by trained professionals in the Militia of the United States. Citizens should retain the right to possess handguns, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles for the purpose of self defense, sport-shooting, and hunting.
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
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jarpo 3 years ago
Even though I'm against guns in general, I do see the need for a semi-auto pistol. The movies we watch and media propagate that a single bullet will stop anyone. That's fictional. It's cool, but not real.

In theory, a single shot to the head can possibly do this. And there might be other certain vital spots that I'm unaware of. But the average civilian will be too emotionally compromised and stressed and probably not experienced enough with firearms to aim and hit the mark in one single shot.

To clarify, because I didn't know myself until recently, a semi-automatic pistol does not mean holding down the trigger and it fires multiple rounds, it means you need to pull the trigger each time to fire a round. You do not need to reload after the first bullet. Most pistols are semi-automatic.
Posted by AriesRCN2 3 years ago
There is no need for Civilians to have semi-automatics (rifles or pistols).
This debate has 4 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.