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

The gun control debate is not this simple (see for details)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 7/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,675 times Debate No: 59403
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




My opponent will have to argue that the gun control debate is as simple as this picture portrays it to be. To win, all I will have to do is show that there are other legitimate factors involved in the question of whether or not to completely illegalize guns.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Most guns used illegally trace their roots back to a legal source[1]. The general practice is that someone buys the weapons out of the store, and then sells them to criminals privately. If guns were illegal, this practice would be impossible. The BoP is so ridiculously skewed in my favor that I don't think I really need to work any harder than this. So, I'll start the debate off with this fact, which quite clearly shows that the debate isn't as simple as the picture suggests. Peace.



It is our 2nd Amendment right. People have died for this right in specific. If we did not have our 2nd Amendment right, then all of the other's would have nothing to fall back upon. Our rights are protected because of the 2nd Amendment, which, I remind you, says:

"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."

None of your rights would matter anymore, if you could not protect them!

Moving on to what you said. Your general practice theory, is not true. I will give you an example.

Do you remember the Aurora shooting in 2012? The shooter, James Holmes, bought his weapons legally bought his arsenal of weapons. His arsenal included 4 guns, mass amounts of bullets, and legal chemical grenades. Could you imagine how DIFFERENTLY that shooting would have happened if there were a man carrying a firearm in there? Other's agree, the third source I put will show you what a trained gunman with 29 years of experience has to say about the shooting.

My friend also would like to input, what would other's do if there was a gun control law, yet a small variety of people still use their weapons to hunt, and put food on the table for their family. What are they supposed to do?

I think you have overstepped your boundary about regulating the only thing that protects your right to be here right now. Be thankful.

Sources (Plural):
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent is supposed to show that the picture I presented in the first round represents all possible legit points to consider during the gun control debate.

My opponent is actually doing me a service when he says that 'it is our 2nd amendment right', because he is indeed bringing up a valid point that is not referenced in the picture.

My opponent's friend also does me a service by bringing up hunter's families. That is another legitimate point to consider, and one which is not portrayed in the picture.

Perhaps some of the voters are disgusted with me, which is fair, as I'm allowing Pro-Gun Rights' points to work for my win, when I am clearly in favor of gun control. That being the case, I will attempt to negate my opponent's points, to be somewhat sporting about this.

In response to my fact about where most criminals get guns, my opponent uses a singular case as a refutation. Immediately we can see this is a problem. Anecdotes do not supersede statistics. But onto the anecdote itself, he says that since James Holmes bought his guns legally, I'm wrong. But if guns were illegal, James wouldn't have gotten a hold of those weapons, so this anecdote doesn't really help my opponent at all. The point that a person with a gun could stop James Holmes is like putting a band-aid on a wound. The extra gunman might defuse the situation sooner, but there's still a good chance people will get hurt, whereas if guns had been illegal, James couldn't have gotten one, and there would've been no need to defuse any situation.

And to my opponent's friend, the hunters could use bows. Laws don't go into effect immediately after passage, generally. So a person who hunts with a gun could learn to hunt with a bow before the law goes into effect.

Keep in mind that my BoP was fulfilled before the refutations, so even if those weren't to your taste, I am still winning the vote.


Tilar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Tilar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 7 years ago
this is such a noob-trap...con has absolutely zero chance of winning
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 7 years ago
Creating this debate was pretty impulsive on my part, I admit. I certainly didn't expect anyone to accept.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 7 years ago
I don't want a 'real' debate, that should've been clear enough from my comment.
Posted by 9spaceking 7 years ago
wow...some noob accepted this.
Posted by E_Pluribus_Unum 7 years ago
@ MyDinosaurHands, I agree with pro in this debate and I am (unlike you) against all major forms of gun control except psychological evaluation. If you want a real gun control debate then this is a poor way to get one.

Private message me if you want to debate this issue and not a severely cherry-picked form of it so we can work out any details beforehand. But please bring your A-game if you do accept.
Posted by Preston 7 years ago
this is so Snipe-able, I have to go back to school soon but if I didn't I would totally snipe the fact that "The gun control debate is not this simple " and that doesn't refer to the status quo but instead you could relate it to this debate, and since its referring to the description (photo) it is simple. infact there are no other factors because its the only thing at this point stating factors. it would also be cool to see a critic of the resolution like in a policy round.
Posted by 1Historygenius 7 years ago
If you are in favor of gun control, do a debate in which you are pro gun control. Don't narrow it down to a noob trap.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 7 years ago
Look guys I know it's an impossible win for Con, I've just been seeing so much of this sh*t lately that I wanted to hammer some gun nut. If nobody on this site is this dumb, then good for them, good for the site in general.
Posted by dexterbeagle 7 years ago
I have to concur with other comments. The debate narrows Con"s range of ideas or even building a credible argument. I am willing to debate gun control from either side (see my previous debate supporting the Second Amendment at the workplace). Include something along the lines that gun control has simple solutions but presents a range of complex legal and societal. But if Pro is setting out to frame a debate in the way presented as of this morning, no one actually interesting in civil liberties or private property or anything of substance should agree to the debate. The structure as of now is structured to the point where no serious debate from Con can occur. I do not intend this comment to be disparaging to MyDinosaurHands, rather I just make a small suggestion because this guns present endless opportunities for good debate and I really enjoy taking extreme position, from absolute 2nd Amendment protections to very strict gun control. MyDinosaurHands if are looking for a debate like the one I mentioned above, I am willing to take either side.
Posted by Daltonian 7 years ago
This is impossible for con to win.

The image is a satirical image, it's not meant to be used as primary leverage in a debate. Anyone intelligent would avoid taking the challenge.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.

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