The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 748 times Debate No: 119392
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




So let me first start off by saying I think gun control is idiotic. Guns have been a heavily debated topic for many years. Many people on the left start to spew out nonsense whenever they talk about gun control. Let me say the thing most people on the right say, Guns don't kill people, People kill people. It's not the guns fault. It's the mentally insane we are talking about. I will hold off on my arguments for now and I would like someone to actually give me a valid argument.


I should start this debate by saying that the Gun Control policies most people are advocating for are specifically to stop mentally disturbed people and violent criminals from obtaining weaponry. We are imposing limits on who can obtain weaponry. These types of gun laws will not pose much of a difficult for law abiding stable citizens. Few people care if these people have guns as well. "Gun Control" and "Gun Elimination" are not synonymous. I am Pro-Gun. To have a platform that says no gun control should exist and to simultaneously say that mentally disturbed individuals are the problem is to hold contradictory beliefs.

Here are arguments for gun control, Again, Not gun bans or gun elimination.

1. Reason for Regulation

If for no other reason, Guns should be regulated to prevent people with demonstrated mental instability, Violent crime records, Et cetera. These people have proven themselves dangerous, And at risk of being school shooters/et cetera. Many of the people who commit mass shootings would have been prevented with stronger or improved background check measures alone. (1) The majority on this list would've been prevented from getting a gun from background checks alone. Others get their guns from their parents. Gun safe requirements for households with children is an easy common sense requirement. 24+ hour waiting periods prior to the acquisition of one's first gun (not guns after the first) will prevent some crimes of passion or suicides, While constituting only a small burden on law abiding citizens. None of these requirements prevent law abiding citizens from acquiring weaponry. This is what we call 'common sense' gun control.

Closing off the gun show, Or private sale, Loopholes, Is also common sense. If we can show many cases where mass shooters would've been stopped from acquiring weaponry with stronger background checks, One can easily see why private sellers should be required to background check prior to weapon purchase as well.

You cannot simultaneously hold the position that mass shooters are mentally disturbed individuals and say we should not regulate guns. To say we shouldn't regulate guns is saying we should be OK with the mentally disturbed and violent criminals getting easy access to weaponry.

To say that 'they can get their weapons even if its illegal' is a moot point. People can get drugs even if they're illegal. Should we not have laws against any drug? People will abort their children even if it illegal. Should it not be regulated? This is an argument you use for nothing else. Why do you use it here? The argument is that legal acquisition of things makes them easier to acquire, And some people will either not be able to afford the higher cost of obtaining weapons illegally, Or will give up prior to this.

No one want to take a knife to a gun fight. The argument that 'they will switch to knives' is also asinine when it comes to regulation, Not bans.

2. Efficiency of Gun Regulation

Whatever freedoms we have as individuals will come at a societal cost. There will be lives lost due to guns if we allow them to be legal. This is simply the price we pay. However, With moderate controls you can limit this negative cost while allowing law abiding citizens the right to their arms.

A law in Connecticut in 1995 required a license as well as a background check prior to purchase of firearms. This required 8 hours of safety training to acquire said license as well as the passing of said background check. The check was conducted by local law enforcement, Not the sellers of the weaponry. The result was a 40% drop in firearm related crime. The repeal of a similar law in Missouri was met with a 25% increase in firearm related homicides.

3. Dangerous Ammunition

We require licenses for people to drive vehicles. If you believe this is a good idea, But licensing guns is not then you have a serious problem on your hands. You can only kill so many people with a car, And you'll largely be taking yourself out at the same time. Guns are relatively cheap and efficient at killing. Even relatively untrained individuals can kill dozens of people before they are stopped. To require licenses for driving but not for owning weaponry and understanding its maintenance and safety (probably saving the person money in the end on both these fronts) is to hold contradictory positions based on little more than a literalist interpretation of the constitution.

Dangerous ammunition such as Dragon's Breath (3) should certainly be regulated. If we're regulating RPGs there's no reason not to regulate these. They present serious fire hazards particularly in drought zones. Ensuring people understand the danger behind this kind of ammunition should be mandatory for public safety.

To conclude,

The position that weaponry and ammunition should not be regulated at all is untenable. You have to believe that mentally unstable and violent criminals should be allowed easy access to weaponry. That we should watch children have easy access to weaponry and punish the parents not at all. That we shouldn't even make an attempt to prevent mass shootings by said unstable individuals when the background checks that can prevent many are barely a minor burden on law abiding citizens. Waiting periods for one's first gun, Licensing requirements for one's first gun, Etc are hurdles that are undeniably beneficial. Law abiding citizens will not have problems getting weaponry even with GUN CONTROL measures in place.

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 1



I worded my first paragraph poorly. I was mainly talking about banning all guns. I agree with you.

What do we do now?


Yea you'll want to put "Gun Ban" as the topic with you as con or something along those lines.

There are tons of people out there who unironically say no gun control should exist while also saying mentally disturbed individuals are doing all the school shootings. I had assumed you were one of these.

More or less you just have to concede and we'll end it quick. Just make a new post for gun bans if that's what you want to talk about.

Alternatively, If you think ALL weaponry shouldn't be banned, I. E. Cannons, RPGs, Flamethrowers, Et cetera we can continue with that.

There's a big question on where you draw the line with which guns the people should be allowed and which they should not. Are you wanting to defend people's rights to own grenade launchers/flamethrowers/tanks et cetera?
Debate Round No. 2


iHateliberals123 forfeited this round.


Opponent conceded

Debate Round No. 3


iHateliberals123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


iHateliberals123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
R1 Sources

1 NY times 2015 "how they got their guns"
2 JHSPH edu 2015 connecticut handgun licensing law 40 percent drop in gun homicides
3 Military com dragon's breath article
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 3 years ago
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: In the future Con needs to better clarify their positions so as to avoid putting forth a position they don't actually hold or want to argue for.

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