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

Guns should be more heavily restricted in 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  
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: 11/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 510 times Debate No: 96768
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




First round is acceptance only. No new arguments in last round.


I will be arguing that guns should be more heavily restricted in the United States. Let's have a good debate :)


okay hey! I'll accept your debate. lets keep it far from personal insults but yeah lets do it! good luck :)
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

First, I will contend that equality is the primary thing our goverment should be achieving. Using social contract theory[1], the natural state of man is one of anarchy where the strongest rules, but this is unmaintainable for many reasons, some of which are obvious. No one has any security and the strong rules over the weak. So, what we do is create social contracts which are rules we must follow lest we be punished for our actions. These rules are manifested as our government, the entity that creates and enforces laws. These laws are primarily to maintain equality and safety, so that no man rules over any other and people do not have to worry whether someone will kill or punish them for not following someone else's self serving orders.

With this in mind, I propose that the reason for restricting the sale of guns is to provide this greater ideal for the government, to maintain equality. Assuming that we have a good gun control plan that keeps guns out of the hands of most criminals, this provides a very strong barrier to violent crimes which is the breach of the contract that provides equality. Deterrence with our prisons is nice, but if we can do more, we are obligated to do it. Criminals have easy access to guns now, but if those guns are much harder to obtain for their suppliers, guns will eventually decrease and gun violence will decrease.

1., primarily the philosophy of John Locke


When the country of the united states of america was born, it was a country of revolutionaries. We created a constitution to make life equal and fair. In the constitution is the most controversial amendment which is the 2nd. The right to bear arms and to create a militia if needed. Until the 21st century, we as humans in the post-industrialized world find it a crusade to create a peaceful and equal utopia; regardless of religious, political, and sociological beliefs. No matter how strict a gun regulation law is criminals will get weapons. "No assault weapons ban, no gun violence restraining order, no ammunition magazine capacity law would have prevented the San Bernardino slaughter. No gun control law has stopped Robert L. Dear Jr. from allegedly killing three people in Colorado."[1]

Today's society is not different how it was a hundred years ago. In industrialized countries, they experience the highest standard of living, equality, and a pursuit of happiness. You say " restricting the sale of guns is to provide this greater ideal for the government, to maintain equality." I disagree with that statement because humans will be humans. We are not perfect and when something seems to perfect it'll cause fear, chaos and destruction. "Attempts to outlaw the manufacture and importation of handguns have failed because they stimulate the genesis of a black market for guns similar to the black market for drugs. Laws seeking to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, juveniles, and mental defectives have failed to reduce crime because active criminals either have guns already or can steal them"[2]

Banning weapons will destroy the country and divide the population more than it is today. Just like abortion and immigration.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent's first claim is that criminals will get guns no matter how strict the gun regulation is in America. There will likely exist some way, but I see no reason to believe that we cannot put forward policies that will stop most criminals from being able to obtain guns. It is true that many criminals get their weapons through secondary sources (not legally bought) [1], but the situation isn't hopeless. I am not proposing a specific overall plan here but this is one option of we could do:

We would only sell guns to private individuals who have a good reason as to why they would use the gun. If the reason is hunting, that is permissible but it must be a gun well suited for hunting but not for using in a fight (relatively), like hunting rifles. If the reason is self defence, the person must have a good reason why they need a gun for self defence and whether they would use it. This is because as I will explain below, guns are generally bad weapons for self defense. A good reason would probably constitute someone having a circumstance in their life that would indicate they are likely to be attacked, and that they need a gun to defend themselves.

If the reason is acceptable, the person having a gun would be on record and before the person could get another gun for the same reason, the previous gun must be given back or otherwise accounted for. Firearms found on a person with no record would be confiscated.

This solves the problem of criminals getting guns from other sources. This or other policies with similar effects would dry up the amount of guns in the pool and would make it much harder for a criminal to obtain a gun. It wouldn't be impossible, but it would help our safety and equality to do so which I argued in the first round should be our primary focus. There would be less guns around that could propagate to criminals, which means less oppritunity to commit violent gun crimes.

Here is why guns are not very good weapons to defend yourself with: Guns are used as self defense in less than 4% of shootings, and people who are carrying a gun in an encounter are 4.5x as likely to be shot[2]. Given that about one in three Americans own a gun[3], we can infer that most people can't or don't use their guns even in a situation where the guns could actually be useful. There are many better alternatives such as pepper spray or stun guns which are easier, safer, and more foolproof.

My opponent then argues that a big black market would be caused by this similar to the illegal drug black market.

This market can be sufficiently defeated by metal detectors. Sure it would still exist, but it would not be as big as Con claims because guns would be much more difficult to import than drugs. It is also much more expensive and requires much more equipment to make a gun, you can't grow your own guns. Therefore, guns would not be super common in the black market, unlike illegal drugs, given good policies with sufficient enforcement

To sum up, we need to reduce the number of guns around to maintain the equality and safety that the government has the duty to uphold. I have proved that it is feasible to do so even when many criminals do not get their guns from legal sources, by stopping the ability for people who do not need the gun to have a gun. Guns in the U.S. most often stem from legal sources but trades and other transactions get them to the hands of criminals. Good gun control policies could end many violent gun crimes at the source, the guns themselves.

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
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by joshuar1996 2 years ago
i am so sorry!!! i just been held back with this research paper i still want to debate im so sorry
Posted by Conceptua 2 years ago
You want to debate? My opponent will probably forfeit. If you believe that I am wrong prove it.
Posted by Conceptua 2 years ago
Posted by NoteablyDebateable 2 years ago
So let me just say this: If person A walks up to person B and stabs person B, is it the knifes fault that person B was stabbed? I think not, while it true guns are more dangerous than a knife the same principles can be said. Someone having a gun does not create a murder, it is someone with the intent to murder that causes the murder ( obviously). As someone who's been to a gun range, shooting a gun is fun. Yet I know the dangers of shooting a gun, so why shouldn't I be able to shoot one in safe conditions? Honestly, This whole country is just one giant ball of paranoia...
Posted by Conceptua 2 years ago

my argument should be out tonight. This is the hardest argument I have written on the site so far, every other argument including round 2 have been pieces of cake to write.
Posted by GrimlyF 2 years ago
It is far too late for any kind of gun control in the U.S.The country is as awash with guns as it is with drugs.In 2014 there were 80,000,000. legal gun certificates and 5,000,000. concealed carry permits issued.Almost 25% of Americans own at least 1 gun.Why do so many feel the need to have a firearm?.It has nothing to do with the Constitution,that simply allows the right to buy a gun.The U.S.A. has,at its root, a deep-seated isolationism,an insularity that,combined with its ever inward looking paranoia is taking a path to,not a civil war but a race war.It is this paranoia that fuels the need for guns.People are not buying them to protect themselves from intruders but because their paranoia tells them they will need them for the coming conflageration.Fear will always stop gun control laws because the people WANT guns.
Posted by Conceptua 2 years ago
no. I'm actually going to use a statistic like that in my argument to show how we can keep guns out of hands of criminals.
Posted by jo154676 2 years ago
Conceptua, would me telling you that only between 3-11% of guns used in crimes were bought legally and would therefore be restricted by tighter laws change your mind about this topic?
This debate has 2 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.