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

Stricter Gun Laws ?

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: 11/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 783 times Debate No: 96991
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)





I would like to have my current gun position challenged. I believe that within the United States the gun laws should be such. There should be an instant background check on weapons when buying a weapon from a federaly licenced gun dealer. There should be no restrictions on class 3 firearms, such as shawn off shotguns, suppersors, fully automatic weapons or such. Private sales or gifts, shall not be subject to backgrounds check and neither should ammunition purchases. That is my current stance on firearms.

I would like to ask you that if you choose to accept this debate that you please do not forfeit, or leave the debate. I am hoping for an experience where I can learn and grow my current span on what I believe, and I hopee the same from you. Please refrain from personal attacks or such alike things. Let's try to keep this logical and fact based without anyone of leaving or geting mad. If you accept then please tell me what your position is below.


I wish you good luck, and I am happy to be debating this topic.
I will let you have the first argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Second Amendement
Alright, so when yo debate something that you are for it can be difficult to come up with an starting argument as fighting for looser gun laws is currently a defensive stance. However that is no problem, my argument starts with the Second Amendement which goes as the following. 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Therefore we have the second amendement protecting our right to keep our arms. Some might argue that when the Second Amendement was writen only muskets and such existed, which is not true. During that time there were Semi-Automatic pepperbox revolvers and fully automatic rifles like the Girodani rifle. The founding fathers knew these weapons existed and there is a story where one of the Second Amendement writers goes hunting with a Girodani rifle explaining how it shoots around 20 bullets in 5 seconds at one click.

Individualism & Self Defence
That brings us to Individualism which was set in focus when the US constitution was written, and I believe that one should be able to save their own life, not needing the government for their survival. Also I would like to note that if you truly believe in Individualism then the individuals right comes over the collectivie, and if might damage the collective. Which in this case I don't believe it does. As 500,000-3,000,000 Americans used a firearm for home defence, and around 200,000 women used a concealed carry weapon to save themselves from sexual assault. This is what I choose to start with, I hope you can counter any of these or tell me why some negatives outweigh these.

I almost forgot, thank you for accepting !;


I agree with much of what you have said. However, keeping this argument short, I would like to point out that you think illegal weapons should be able to be sold in your second argument. I agree with the second amendment, which you started off with, but pertaining to the relevance of this debate, which is stricter gun laws, I will bring up the topic of certain weapons. Many weapons, such as the M60, portable grenade launchers, and the RPG, is illegal for civilian use. I am aware that I am using such extremes, but they are considered guns, and I like to go out with a bang (horrible pun intended.)
Good luck, I hope to see your next argument.
Debate Round No. 2


Since I don't know what your stance is yet, and you haven't told me what your current position is then I will therefore argument it from my perspective. I don't know much, however your choice was (Pro) on the question whether if we should have stricter gun laws or not. I don't know how strict gunlaws you want, however I would like to ask you how strict you want them to initially be. As strict as Chicago ? As Strict as Los Angeles ? As strict as New York ? Those three cities are the three hardest place in the United States to get a weapon. Let's take a look at that.

Chicago - Murder Capital, Gang Capital
Los Angeles - Number two on the gang list
New York - Mafia Capital

Since these arguments have been made I would like to note that I am aware, that these problems Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York have isn't single handely caused by the gun laws. If that was the case I might as well mention a country in Africa where guns are basicly banned. That is not the case. However, just like the Alcohol Prohobition where murder rates spiked and dropped after the Prohobition the same happend for the United States period where we had strict gun control. After Kennedy was assissinated, there restrictions were lifted during the late 1980's and right around the same time murder rates start dropping from the spikes they were having. Today the United States murder rate has dropped 50% since 1989. Also in the later period more and more states have been legalizing open carrying or making it easier. What was the instant result ? 8.5% Drop in Murders. 5% Drop in Rapes. 7% Drop in rapes. 3% Drop in robberies. Im not saying that is the sole reason for the drops, however this is getting suspicious. Therefore I try to look for a pattern.

To see if that is a patern we need to look at other countries that have enacted gun control measures, or gun general control. The first country we find is Great Britain. Which has had three gun control measures. When the first gun ban was enacted in 1968 crime and murder rate increase, so did every other type of voilent crime like robbery, assault and such. Some might argue that is not relevant due to the old date, therefore I'll only look at th two latest gun control measures. One in 1988, and one in 1997. What was the result ? The exact, same increased murder rate, ect ect. Let's look at Australia then, we see the exact same thing. More armed robberies, a higher murder rate and a black market controlled by organized crime propsering even more. I may note that lately in these lasts years the Australian murder rate has started do decline quite hard. However, when I looked into that after the Australian gun confiscation Australians started buying guns again, now they have more then ever. Murder rate dropped, coincidence ?

So after seeing this one might argue that I am being unfair, only looking at the western world. I maybe even these countries enacted gun control measures to stop the murder rate from spiking even harder ? Let's take a statisticial look at that. Let's have a look at Eastern Europe then. The country with least guns is Romania, and the one with most guns (per person) is Serbia. Romania has a higher murder rate. Maybe thats an unfair comparison, so let's have a look at what happend when these places mention lifted their gun restrictions like some did. Up until 2010 Chicago had stricter gun control then almost every country in europe, until the supreme cour overruled the handgun ban. What happend ? Decreased murder rate.

Common Sense

So let's have a look at how this might make sense. You have organized crime groups or cartels which looks for areas with a lot of gangs. They produce and create their own weapons have a look at this :
These groups look for gangs where they can sell their firearms to gangs and such, if we have strict gun control measures then the civilan location can no longer protect themselves from these menances. Let's have a look at that statistically within the United States. The country with the least guns per person is Delaware, the state with the most guns per person is Alaska. Delaware has a higher murder rate, and a higher gun murder rate. Are all these things a coincidence ? If so, then please shoot me. Or no infact don't do that gun control advocates would use that to ban guns, hang me. :D There you go, you can now argue that all gun owners are lunatics. :D


In my final argument here I'll just respond to what you said. You said that I stated that one could sell illegal weapons, if you are reffering to the no background checks on private sales then you must know that you are requiered to report if a firearm is stolen and as a supported of project exile (mandatory 5 year prison sentence for illegal firearms) I believe that would certanly stop such things. In Kennesaw Georgia every household is requiered to own a firearm, and theres no background check on private sales and there has still been no reported problem of what you say. I might note that the only report Kennesaw Georgia got after that was a reduced murder rate, reduced burglaries and reduced robberies.

Looking forward to the response.;;;


Sorry for the late response. I was doing work.

First of all, you have no correlation between gangs and gun control. There are too many variables to factor in.

Second of all, when you were talking about Kennesaw, Georgia, you said that they had a reduced murder rate and reduced burglary rate. That means that you are comparing something to it. Are you comparing it to modern cities, which have naturally high criminal rates?

Last of all, the reason why the second of amendment was created was for families to protect themselves. Nowadays, you can just get an alarm system. That will drastically reduce robberies. Even the Anarchist Cookbook's only advice for robbers when the home has an alarm is "run like hell."

And by the way, my stance on gun control is that people should handle just a pistol. No need to get crazy.
Debate Round No. 3



I'll respond to your questions and remarks one by one.

Correlation Between gangs and Gun Control

Alright, so earlier I explained how voilent crime works with gun control. Voilent crime meaning, Murder, Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assault. Most people would agree that gangs thrive on these sorts of activiesa amongs many other illegal activities. So with stricter gun control these activities become more common as people are made to sheep. Therefore, making the gangs prescence even stronger. When you have a stronger prescence it makes people more likely to join the gang. However that is just one of all the different variables.

Kennesaw, Georgia Reduce Murder rate & Burglary Rate

When I was writing about the Kennesaw, Georgia murder rate and burglary rate I was comparing it to what those numbers were earlier inside Kennesaw, Georgia. For Example, after it became mandatory to have atleast one gun in each household the burglary rate in Kennesaw, Georgia immediatly sharply declined.

Second Amendement Created for families to protect themselves ?

Contrary to popular belief the Second Amendement was not created for self defence, hunting or such activities. The second Amendement was put in place incase the peoples government ever turned tyranical. As for families to protect themselves what you said is not exactly true. I have a hard time believing that drugs addicts, gangs members or just burglars care what it says in the anarchist handbook when it comes to home invasions, or burglaries. Therefore I must mention that what you mentioned with alarm systems, especially now adays with new alarm system is very good, however the statistical fact that with stricter gun laws there are more burglaries, they happen more when people are home and they also are more dangerous. It is also of ideological importance where, I believe that you should not have to run to your phone, and call the government to plea them to save your life. One should be able to have the right of self preservation.



All I have to say about the Gangs section is that you stated that this is one of many variables. There can be no direct tie saying that people that do not have guns are more likely to be gangsters.
Debate Round No. 4


Alright, thank you very much for the debate ! I really enjoyed it, so again thank you. I'll just use this final round to get a good thank you for reading everything and coming up with counter arguments to all my posts. Also thanks for not forfeiting.


It was my pleasure to be in this debate. You were very good. I am sorry for bad arguments and few sources, but I had very little time. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Dpowell 1 year ago
Before: Tied
After: Con
Who had better conduct: Tied
Who had better spelling and grammar: Pro
Who made more convincing arguments: Con
Who used the most reliable sources: Con

The debate was very interesting, but in the end I believe Con is the victor. But before I explain why, let me first explain why I awarded Pro better spelling and grammar. If you'd notice, Con misspells frequently throughout the rounds. For example, check the very first round, the first paragraph. Con misspelled licensed and sawed-off. In their arguments, Pro had extraordinary spelling.
Now on to the main points. I awarded Con for having more convincing arguments because they provided information to back the points. Pro just shot down most of Con's arguments without any evidence to back it up. This is where the sources come in. I awarded Con with the more reliable sources because they actually had sources to back up what they were arguing. Whether or not those sources are reliable, are up for debate, but they are better than having no sources to support your information which is how Pro went about making his arguments.
Posted by gadsila 1 year ago
Thanks, hope noeone forfeits :)
Posted by GOP_lol 1 year ago
Nice debate.
Posted by XDM 1 year ago
How would you argue? If I were to accept, would you want me to provide a counter proposal which I believe to be better or would you want me to simply point out what I believe are the faults in your stance?
No votes have been placed for this debate.