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

Gun Rights

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 119196
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I'm not very good in debating and I'm trying to 'up my game' if you will. Because of this, I'd like this debate to be brief.
I will be arguing why firearms should not be regulated. I am assuming 'con' will be arguing why firearms should be regulated, Some be banned, Or banned altogether.

The first round will be for acceptance and to agree to the proposed conditions.
The second round will be for presenting our cases with no rebuttals.
For the third and final round, Rebuttals and final remarks will be said.
1) Be civil with your points. (It's about the topic, Not the person)
2) When providing factual information, It would be prefered to include a reliable source backing it up.

Looking formard to a productive debate which hopefully both will learn a few things.


I accept.

Also, You should define 'firearms' very clearly for us. There are some people who believe nothing should be regulated, I. E. People can own tanks, Grenades, Mines, Rocket launchers, Et cetera. Does your term 'firearms' also include various types of ammunition out there? This will be important for my arguments.

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate, Thoht. To define "firearms", Just the guns and all ammunition. Heavy artillery and weapons of war is for another debate. I have a lot to talk about with limited space. Now, Lets begin.
Guns should not be regulated for four reasons; personal preservation, The Inefficiency of gun laws, And defense from a tyrannical government.

Personal Preservation
According to John Locke, We have the right to life(1). This means we the people have the right to protect our life through any means necessary. This includes using guns to do so. First, I must make clear that many people believe that guns are the root of our self destruction, This is false. If we look into it, When guns are taken from the hands of both criminals and law-abiding citizens, Criminals will move to the next best thing of sharp objects, And the crime rate will rise. London has created this scene, Which made their crime rate to rise above New York"s. Let's take a look(2)(3). The crime rate has been rising for the past few years. Sadiq Khan recently banned knives. Let"s take a look at Kennesaw, Georgia(4). As reported, There has only been one murder in six years in Kennesaw, While Chicago, Illinois had 11 people die because of guns in one weekend. The difference is Kennesaw requires every head of household to own a gun, And Chicago banned guns in the 1980"s.
Now that the fact that more guns inspire less crime has been stated, Statistics show that guns are used more times to save lives than to take them(5) and are the best means of self protection. If guns are more regulated than they already are in the America, We"ll have even less means of protection and criminals will still have guns illegally.
You need to protect yourself during a home invasion as well, They might be there to do harm. If guns are removed from the scene, And the invader is a 250lb man, It should be impossible to make it out safely. A can protect you and get you out of a dangerous situation. Guns have been using to protect property and self in around half a million to 3 million times a year(6).
Areas where citizens cannot defend themselves are in gun-free zones. Mass shootings and most murders happen in gun-free zones where the assailant won't be stopped until someone with a gun (the police) stops them. In one of the latest shootings, The shooter paused for an extended amount of time to make a post and he still wasn"t stopped because no one else had a gun(7). Only a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun is true and it happens all the time(8).

Inefficiency of Gun Laws
Gun laws are inefficient because no matter how many laws are in place, Crime will not decrease, And violent crime by gun will only rise. Even if guns were completely banned, There is no effective way to confiscate all of the guns in all of America. Criminals will still have firearms while law-abiding citizens will be defenseless. Making guns illegal will drive the gun market underground making them accessible to only criminals. Two more ways guns are accessible to criminals are under the counter purchases and theft.
Defense Against a Tyrannical Government
This is where the point of not regulating the purchase of firearms becomes essential. When Hitler, Stalin, And multiple other dictators came into power, The first thing they did was confiscate all of the firearms. This happened because the citizens had no means of protection against the government. At this point in time, We the people are vulnerable to being overthrown because the government has restricted the most effective firearms from the public.
Many people might say and think the 2nd amendment was created for hunting, In reality, It was put in place to protect the rest of the amendments if they were ever ignored and gave we the people the right to keep a well regulated militia, Being necessary to the security of a free state. This means that the states can form a large group of non-professional soldiers comprised of volunteers against the government in order to preserve their freedom. In 2012, The Bundy family enacted their 2nd amendment when the government tried to seize a portion of their property(9).

Out of room, A few things were left out. Sources are in the comments!

This concludes my case. Over to you, Thoht


Your arguments are nearly entirely geared towards anti-ban. Your arguments don't work to prove regulation should not happen, Which is my position. Not strictly a rebuttal here, But my points will directly counter one of yours.

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.

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 2


Sorry, Thoht. There's many things going on in real life right now. I will not be able to complete this debate. Perhaps some other time?


Happens to the best of us.

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
R2 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
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Post sources in the comments, Not in your main post. URLs are forbidden. You have to put spaces after every period, And some still don't work. Sometimes you have to sum up something people can throw in google to find.
Posted by WhiteHawk 3 years ago
Either my case isn't uploading, Or I'm not doing something right. Any tips?
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
I hope you do well.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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