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

Gun control of any kind would be bad for the US

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: 5/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 54379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Leaked information and government actions in the past few decades has proved that gun control would likely result in terrible things happening to America, as it would make controlling an armed population much easier. MK-ULTRA, NSA data mining, and the IRS targeting conservatives, prime examples of how dirty our government can truly be, and being able to own assault rifles and other firearms is essential to continually safeguarding our Constitution. (I won't include links for those simply because a search on Google will get you plenty of info on them) Gun control is a nasty creature that needs a stake driven through it's heart.


Thanks to my opponent for opening the debate. To begin, we need to establish what gun control is, and what it is not. Gun control is not some Orwellian principle that would require citizens to lock their weapons in government vaults and wear serial numbered arm bands. Gun control is not taking people’s guns away. Gun control is applying common sense measures to ensure that people exercise their Constitutional rights in ways that are safe for everyone. Anything that can be highly dangerous rightly requires some degree of government regulation: Drivers must get licensed before operating a vehicle, surgeons must pass state exams before cutting people open. Guns are no different. For this debate, I will argue that it makes perfect sense to regulate firearms in several ways.

First, it makes sense for the government to require background checks and permits before letting people carry weapons in public. This is a simple measure that ensures guns are not purchased by people with a history of criminal activity, substance abuse, or mental illness. Any reasonable person would agree that it’s a bad idea to let such people freely purchase guns. Requiring permits ensures that people actually know how to operate their firearms. We do this for drivers because we don’t want people who can’t correctly operate a vehicle zooming through our neighborhoods and highways. Such a reality would put everyone at risk. Similarly, since the Constitution protects the right to carry a weapon, it only makes sense to require that people know how to do it safely.

Second, firearm owners should be required to attend basic firearms training. If hunters must pass a safety course before being allowed to carry guns through uninhabited woodlands, citizens should have to pass a safety course before being allowed to have guns in densely populated residential areas. Firing a weapon requires much more than simply squeezing a trigger. It involves decision making, accuracy, and remaining calm under stress. People using guns to defend themselves or others without any practice in these areas can make dangerous situations worse, not better.

These measures do not infringe on anyone’s Second Amendment right to own a gun. People can still buy, carry, and use weapons freely. Gun control of this flavor simply makes sure that people who choose to buy guns respect them and know how to properly use them. If applied in such a way, gun control only helps to make society safer for everyone.

Debate Round No. 1


Cappin forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


Cappin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Romanii 7 years ago
Lol this would be such an easy win. I'm gonna pass just because I have too many other debates happening simultaneously...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Conduct for the forfeits, obviously. S&G was equal enough, I suppose, as was sourcing. As to arguments: Con never had his case responded to, and so his arguments stand. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

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