The Instigator
lord_debater
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
THAT_Debater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 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...
lord_debater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 109930
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

lord_debater

Con

Gun control is pointless and stupid because it would have the exact opposite effect than law makers and Democrats want it to and I'm going to prove it

Best of luck to my opponent
THAT_Debater

Pro

Well, let's hear them! Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_debater

Con

For starters guns save lives more often than the crimes involving them are reported to police a lot of the time all the owner has to do is display the firearm and the would be criminal turns and walks away. So my question is what good would a ban do? Because criminals being criminals will still have guns all you'll be doing is taking away the people's ability to defend themselves. Not to mention start a second civil war for messing with the Constitution.
THAT_Debater

Pro

There is one misconception you have. Your statement is about gun control not a gun ban.

Gun control is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as "regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns".

https://www.merriam-webster.com...

I agree we should not ban guns. But I'm all for gun control as long as it doesn't tell me I can't have/carry a gun.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_debater

Con

True gun control and a gun ban are two different things but if you pay close attention to what politicians say like for instance former president Obama he says quote "these are only the first steps" implying that control is just a stepping stone on the path. We already have super strict gun control laws the problem is enforcing them not making them stronger. You see, background checks can only go as far as the info that is submitted about that person which is why so many mentally unstable people get their hands on fire arms because somebody didn't tell the government that Jonny here was in a mental institution. The laws are strong enough because you can't get a gun if you've been in a mental institution, convicted of a felony, on the no fly list for suspected terrorist links, an illegal immigrant etc. Yet they still say we have some of the most lax gun laws in the world. But like I said the problem isn't the laws themselves it's enforcing them. A gun sales person can't refuse the sale if they find nothing wrong on the background check otherwise they would be out of a job. And the laws don't stop the criminals that have stolen guns from other people like Adam Lanza from the Sandy Hook school shooting who was a reported mentally I'll individual. He killed his mother stole her gun and shot up an elementary school. Current gun laws wouldnt have stopped that from happening and new ones wouldn't have been able to either short of banning the guns used. In short there's nothing wrong with the gun control system itself just the people who are in charge of monitoring and updating it.
THAT_Debater

Pro

You said it well when you said, "Like I said the problem isn't the laws themselves it's enforcing them."

We aren't talking about a gun-ban, nor the enforcement of gun control laws. We are talking about are gun control laws a good idea in general. We aren't talking about adding extra laws either. My position is simply gun control laws are a good idea to have, but not to go overboard with.
Debate Round No. 3
lord_debater

Con

Then it seems we really have nothing to argue about because I was talking about the new ones that the politicians keep proposing that would "help eliminate mass shootings" even though that's bs because gun control can't stop everything despite what everyone wants to think
THAT_Debater

Pro

I'm just debating the statement you made at the start of this debate. You said "Gun control is pointless and stupid because it would have the exact opposite effect than law makers and Democrats want it to and I'm going to prove it"

I defined gun control by Merriam-Webster at the beginning, and that definition stands. Gun control is not the ban of guns. It's the "regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns".

The pro side has yet to prove that the regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns is pointless and stupid.
If you were to vote for pro, you would be saying that we should not regulate people with guns. That is beyond stupid. Gun control isn't taking guns away, it's making sure it doesn't get into the wrong hands.

One more thing I would like to point out, pro never proved that EVEN BANNING GUNS was a bad idea. He just asserted. I'm not saying we should ban guns, actually, quite the opposite. Voting con is saying we should keep regulations of guns.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by PointyDelta 3 years ago
PointyDelta
>We already have super strict gun control laws

imagine being this american
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 3 years ago
FREEDO
lord_debaterTHAT_DebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made virtually no arguments. Also, they mixed up pro with con but that?s inconsequential.

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