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

Liberals have already won the gun debate you just don't realize it

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 3/31/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 112022
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




What is the starting point for every gun debate today? Someone suggests the population shouldn't own "assault weapons" and their opponent suggests they don't have any idea what they are talking about. Which is hardly arguable.

Why do we start at this point? How did we get to this paradigm where advocates for the Second Amendment accept the premise that we should not own fully automatic weapons and that is where we start the conversation?

It is because those who are strongly against the Second Amendment (or perhaps those in favor of total government control) have already won the debate. Concessions to this viewpoint have already been made and those who are pro-Second Amendment have already accepted the premise that some weapons are too dangerous for private citizens to own and should only be controlled by the government. Liberties have already been severely encroached upon in favor of security.

There are only two explanations for why this debate is framed the way it is today. One could be that pro-gun individuals lack the clarity to comprehend the bigger picture since it has never been brought to their attention or framed in this manner. The second is that they tacitly agree with the principles of public safety anti-gun individuals advocate. They believe the same things in principle and don't believe that the public should have access to certain weapons.

If your argument is not based on principles such as equal access to weapons for government and citizens then how can you win? You are not making a principled argument when you say we should have access to AR-15s. What government entity uses AR-15s? Why are these the weapons that the line is drawn over? Does the Second Amendment guarantee your rights to bear arms unless they are automatic weapons? Eventually your rights will be paired back further and further, as they have been for many years now, until nothing is left. All in the name of public safety.

Do you actually believe in the Second Amendment? Why not fight to reinstate full rights for gun owners instead of quibbling over the already pitiful list of guns the government allows you to own today? Unless you do agree, in principle, with those who want to take away your "assault weapons."


More gun control like the liberal party's advocacy supports will not reduce crime

Firstly, people will still own guns illegally and commit crime with them

Banning guns will not stop mass murders.

Paddock had a legal semi-automatic rifle modified to fire fully automatically. Fully automatic rifles are illegal, but the black market exists. Private sells exist. And just like drugs, even though they're illegal, people still obtain them, sell them, use them, and ultimately get arrested and charged for possession of them.

Guns aren't the issue. The people who commit these sick, twisted crimes are the issue. Believe it or not, everyone who owns a gun does not have the intention to kill someone or go on a shooting spree at a concert. Responsible and mentally-stable people own guns for reasons like self-defense.

In one study, led by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, researchers partnered with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to trace the origins of firearms that police recovered from crime scenes in the year 2008.

They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else. The researchers were primarily interested in how these guns made their way from a legal purchase " at a firearm dealer or via a private sale " to the scene of the crime.

Therefore, the impact of abolishing the 2nd amendment is that you are essentially advocating to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and allowing criminals to own them.

Secondly, more gun control has shown to increase crime

In 1976, D.C. implemented a law that banned citizens from owning guns, as only police officers were allowed to carry firearms. Those who already owned guns were allowed to keep them only if they were disassembled or trigger-locked. Trigger locks could only be removed if the owner received permission from the D.C. police, which was rare.

According to prosecutor Jeffrey Shapiro, the results were not good. Annual homicides rose from 188 in 1976 to 364 in 1988, and then increased even further to 454 in 1993. The gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, and homicides have steadily declined since then to 88 yearly murders in 2012. While Shapiro admits that there were other factors involved with the decline in homicides, lifting the gun ban clearly did not result in a rise in murders.

D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and consequently is one of the most dangerous places in the country to live, but the facts clearly show that homicides in D.C. rose after the ban was implemented and then subsequently declined after the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional.
Debate Round No. 1


The concept of what I am saying here seems to have gone a bit over your head so hopefully I can bring it back to a level we can debate on. I am not your everyday leftist here advocating liberal values of Second Amendment destruction. You seem to have somehow misunderstood my writing and assumed that I think banning guns will stop mass murders or that I am anti-gun. That's not the issue I am here to debate so we can skip all the standard talking points you already went over.

My assertion is that the idea that certain weapons are too dangerous for people to own has already been accepted by everyone in the United States and that list continues to grow. Owning automatic weapons produced after 1986 is illegal. Do you agree that this is a good thing?

You yourself used the fact that fully automatic weapons are illegal in your argument! Why? Why can't we have those weapons? As you said, "Guns aren't the issue. The people who commit these sick, twisted crimes are the issue."

This is just more proof that this conversation has been so slanted that your starting point, and all the arguments you present when you think I am anti-gun are to protect your right to have semi-auto "assault" rifles.

So lets try this again. I will try to simplify.

Do you believe that law-abiding citizens deserve access to the same military grade of weaponry that our government does? Why or why not


Abolishing the second amendment is detrimental to the US economy

The firearms and ammunition industry is important to US jobs

The US firearms and ammunition industry grew to $51.3 billion by 2016, and employs over 300,000 people, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation"s (NSSF) Economic Impact Report. This figure is a 168% increase from the industry"s 2008 economic impact, which then stood at $19.1 billion. It paid roughly $7.4 billion in federal and state taxes in 2016, according to the NSSF Report.

Around 30% of adults own the 310 million guns in the United States. In Nevada, 38% of adults own guns, and private gun sales are legal. The NSSF estimates there are between 5 to 8.2 million assault-style weapons in the United States. After the shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut in 2012, sales of these weapons increased rapidly due to fears of future bans. Still, assault rifles make up only 2-3% of firearms owned in the US.

Companies in the United States that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment employ as many as 141,500 people in the country and generate an additional 159,623 jobs in supplier and ancillary industries. These include jobs in companies supplying goods and services to manufacturers, distributors and retailers, as well as those that depend on sales to workers in the firearms and ammunition industry.

These are good jobs, paying an average of $50,423 in wages and benefits. And today every job is important. In fact, workers in the United States face an unemployment rate of about 5 percent. This means that there are already nearly 8 million people trying to find jobs in the nation and collecting unemployment benefits.

The economic benefits of the gun industry spreads throughout the country

Not only does the manufacture and sale of firearms, ammunition, shooting and hunting supplies create good jobs in the United States but the industry also contributes to the economy as a whole. In fact, in 2016 the firearms and ammunition industry was responsible for as much as $51.3 billion in total economic activity in the country.
The broader economic impact flows throughout the economy, generating business for firms seemingly unrelated to firearms. Real people, with real jobs, working in industries as varied as banking, retail, accounting, metal working, even in printing, all depend on the firearms and ammunition industry for their livelihood.

The gun industry significantly contributes to tax revenue

The firearms and ammunition industry generates sizable tax revenues. In the United States the industry and its employees pay over $6.5 billion in federal and state taxes including property, income and sales-based levies.
Debate Round No. 2


Ok seriously am I arguing with a bot here?

You literally must have not read anything that I have written here and have just copied and pasted some generic arguments for why the Second Amendment is a good thing. That is not the point of this debate!!!

If you want to find someone to debate with that is totally against the Second Amendment and wants it abolished post your own debate. There are plenty of those people out there. As it is you have completely wasted my time by ignoring everything I have posted and instead debating some imaginary anti-gun advocate.

Either you are a robot who is programed with only the basic responses to Second Amendment debates, or you are trolling me, or your reading comprehension is non-existent.

Thank you for wasting my time
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Apolitical 3 years ago
I was talking to Asta there
Posted by ILikePie5 3 years ago
I'm not debating you anywhere lol
Posted by Apolitical 3 years ago
Not sure what you're trying to say their ILikePie... Yes people own a lot of "assault weapons" today. That's a really weak argument asta but since I am debating you in another similar debate I'll respond to it over there if you choose to use it.
Posted by ILikePie5 3 years ago
PRO, the difference is that these "assault weapons" constitute a great portion of the total guns. Not everyone owned a machine gun unlike these "assault weapons"
Posted by asta 3 years ago
When the founding father's wrote the constitution, there were not assault weapons in existence. It would be like the constitution allowing anyone to do anything in the name of their religion. Does that mean that human sacrifice is okay, if it's for religious purposes? No. Does it mean that it's okay to perform jihads in an attempt to spread your religion? No.

There are exceptions to the constitution.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
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: Con simply did not engage with Pro's argument. Con seemed to have a misunderstanding of what the resolution of this debate was.

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