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

Gun Control ?

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
joshuar1996 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: 10/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 96162
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I'm looking to have my Pro Gun position challenged as the only time when we learn is when we hear the opposite. My current stance is based out of The United States which is my home country, and I'm therefore looking for an opponent that is also from the US. My current position is that there should be no Gun Regulations other than instant background checking, checking if you have a prison record, or any mental health record. Private Sales shall not be scanned, neither shall gifts. No restrictions shall be put on suppressors, fully automatic weapons or weapons with short barrels. That's my current position, feel free to enter :)


hey, I accept your challenge of this control debate that I'll be as the affirmative of. Luckily enough I'm from Colorado, a pretty pro gun state somewhere in the middle. In this debate I'm not going to be a far left pro-control person but i'll sure stick to my guns and win this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


My Pro-Gun argument starts with the belief in Individiualism. In a true Indivindiualist society one is not depandand of the state for their life, even if it damages the collective. Which it in this case doesn't, there is no proof in our modern society that bans or regulations have any effect towards the safety of society. This goes for Alcohol Prohobition, The War on Drugs, and the US age of Gun Regulation, which murder rates declined heavily after ended. We also Second Amendement which protects the peoples right to keep and bear arms. It does not only cover muskets which is popular belief, as there were many Semi Automatic and Automatic weapons at the time. I'll put the sources for that below. So when you wish to take something away from someone, or regulate it you need to reason that with the benefits of doing such.


I'll begin my argument by saying that in a state where we have life saving services on our finger tips and can come to aid in a window of 5 to 20 minutes, we live in a society where having your house raided by bandits or Native America is zero. So why do we need people to own AK-47 or any other bigger weapons. Understandably I do agree a typical 9mm is pretty good for of protection, perhaps the exception on some shotguns. I agree that the 2nd amendment is essential in our country but we need to reform it because when we see mass murders, domestic abuse offenders, and gang members having access without registrations or knowing who is buying the guns and what have they done; That can cause a lot of damage in the long run in society.

You said "Private Sales shall not be scanned, neither shall gifts. No restrictions shall be put on suppressors, fully automatic weapons or weapons with short barrels. " which I disagree because no matter how a gun is purchased it's important to know who is buying it to keep tabs on them, even if its a gift. We don't just sell cars without registrations whether its private, public, or a gift. And like I said earlier we don't live in a society where a m60, m16, and ak-47's are needed.

My view isn't for absolute gun control and regulations where it would be nearly impossible for an average Joe to get a 9mm but a society where we keep tabs of our gun owners and make sure the people we are selling to aren't hidden psychopaths because mental and background checks can be easily passed.
Debate Round No. 2


I'd like to start with the fact that no gu regulation as successfully reduced overall crime. So when you say that you won't need an AK47 or such you must know that there is no benefit in banning such. Fully automatic weapons are almost banned in the US righ now and there has been no reduction in crime since the ban took place. You say that bandits don't raid peoples houses anymore but you have to look at the fact that around 500,000 people used a gun for self defence last year. In addition 200,000 women used a firearm to protect themselves from sexual abuse. As for the 5 to 20 minutes time there are places were you have to wait hours for the police or such to come, and if you believe in Individualism than you would agree with that atleast those people should be abllowed firearms for self preservation.

As for gang members and such crimimals they buy their guns illegaly, and more gun regulation just creates a bigger black market. We see that in Chicago which has the strictest gun control where pistols were banned until 2010. We see it in Los Angeles the second strictest place to get a gun that it is the gang capital of the United States. We also have places of the exact oppsosite like Kennesaw, Georgia where every household was required to own a gun. The result was a 89% drop in burglary rates, and a 85% drop in voilent crime rates. So no matter how good your intentions originally are it might just make the problem worse. As for mass shootings the US is currently in a bad period for mentally ill people, and so many mentally ill are put in prison, that is the actual reason for all these mass shootings.

However I can see where you are coming from as there might no be any reason to for people to own such weapons you need to show a benefit with banning them, and sadly there is not any examples where any gun control has made society safer in the modern world. We see that in the US with the states with the strictest gun control having the highest murder rates. As we have recently entered an area of expansion of gun rights, making it more universal to allow open carry and such, in this expansion we've seen a soar in the murder rates and crime in general. We can also look at other countries if we want to use those as gun controle examples. In the United Kingdom there has been two recent gun bans one in 1988 and one in 1997 in both cases voilent crime, murder rate and gun crime increased. We saw the same in Australia with murder rates increasing, gun murder rate increasing as the number of registrered weapons decreased armed robberies, burglaries and such soared in Australia. However the popultion quite quickly bought their guns back now having more guns than ever all of these are dropping.

Since 1989 gun rights as been improved immensly, and the US crime rate has decreased 50% :) I would like to understand your lining of argument but statistically it just gets worse creating a blackmarket and killing industries when we increase gun control, and please don't ues a car as an example, a car is a privelege while a gun is a fundemental right here in the United States and still more people die as a result of cars. So I'll have to ask you this, do you thing a Organized Crime Syndicate basing on guns cares about the gun laws and you thing their profits will decrease or increase if we stricten gun control laws ? We saw in the US gun control period that the mafia did build up just as with the alcohol prohibition.

Just as a finaly measure we can look at some other places than the west too. In eastern europe for example, the country with the most loose gun control laws is Serbia. The country with the strictest gun control laws is Romania. Romania has a higher murder rate. Correlation does not imply causation, but this is getting suspicious.
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
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by gadsila 2 years ago
Sorry for all the spelling mistakes, I read through it and theres quite a few, however I hope it's readable. I wrote it at a very wierd time of day, and I was quite tired. Also, I'm from Texas since you mentioned that you are from Colorado. Nice to meet you :)
Posted by Vogue_Paris 2 years ago
As with Gadsila's approach, American's have an absolute right to uphold their second amendment right and own some type of firearm in order to rightfully defend themselves. However, it is true that we shouldn't be toting around an AK-47-unless it's for bragging purposes-just like we shouldn't be carrying a nine inch machete-unless we are hunting or skilled assassins. That being said, I would choose every time to uphold my second amendment rights, but to an extent. I'm sure you don't need a powerful machine gun to do the job of a .45 or a revolver. You should still be allowed to own whatever weapon you may choose-with an eligible background check when needed-but remember, when defending yourself or your family, you are not shooting for sport, you are aiming to kill (or seriously maim) the unwanted bastard.
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.