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

Weapon laws should be more flexible in Europe

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
Fuljh56 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: 4/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 326 times Debate No: 112860
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Europe has faced one of the toughest immigrant waves in the last 80 years, not only have we taken in too many immigrants for our governments to handle, these immigrants have in fact been in many cases terrorists that have struck our European union hard. My opinion is not trying to hate on these immigrants, I am fully aware that these people come from nothing but war and oppression. My thought process is simple, make it easier for legitimated European citizens with clean background checks to acquire guns within the EU in order to somewhat prevent a chaotic scene that were all familiar with at the moment in within the Europeans borders.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Great, I look foward to hearing your views and understanding your point of view.


Pro starts by claiming that in many cases, people that have immigrated to Europe have turned out to be terrorists. I would ask Pro to define the word "many" here given that more terrorist attacks in Europe in recent times have been committed by people that were born in those countries than those that immigrated to them

Pro then asserts that a solution to the terrorism threats is to loosen gun laws in Europe so that citizens with clean background checks can purchase firearms. In order for this to qualify as a solution, this would have to reduce potential body counts. And in order for it to do that, I would argue that it would have to jump over a number of hurdles.

Firstly, it would have to be exclusively putting guns in the hands of the right people. What is to stop a potential terrorist with no criminal history from taking advantage of the loosened gun laws to commit even more heinous attacks than they otherwise would have been capable of committing?

Also, potential terrorist attacks would have to present an opportunity for someone to be the hero. Some terrorist attacks aren't known to be terrorist attacks until it's too late. Such is often the case with bombings for instance, suicide or otherwise. Other terrorist attacks aren't quite so instantaneous but are still short-lived enough or have some other circumstances that make them impractical for someone to be capable of playing the hero. Such as people in fast moving vehicles running people over which has happened several times in Europe in recent years.

But what about cases where an opportunity to play the hero does in fact present itself? Well, how many people are actually willing to be a hero when the chips are down? If we look to the US where gun laws on the whole are somewhat looser compared to countries within the EU, we have seen a number of mass shootings occur. But we rarely see any citizens shooting back. Is it just one big massive coincidence that there's hardly ever anyone that carries a firearm that is in the vicinity of the shootings? Or is it that most people that carry a firearm that are in the line of fire are running for cover like everyone else and most people in the surrounding areas would rather stay safe than venture into the danger zone to save others?

And even if we have people that are actually willing to draw their firearm, how are we to trust that the outcome would be favourable? First there's the assessment of the threat. Someone on a train for example that is in a rush to catch another train that is due to pull into the station might run off one train to catch the other. In the panic, they might forget to pick up their backpack before leaving the first train. To an onlooker carrying a firearm, it looks incredibly suspicious to leave a backpack on a train and then run away from the train as if their life depended on it. This person would not have time to think it through. The suspect is running through the station and will be out of view in a matter of seconds. How many false positives like this would have tragic results?

So there have been lots of hurdles to jump over. Every one would have to have been surpassed with each occasion of a citizen opening fire. But even if they all were, what then? The guns have gotten into the right hands. The terrorist attack is slow and methodical, giving citizens the chance to correctly assess the threat, gather up the courage to be the hero and there are no practical barriers to them being capable of drawing their firearm and firing on the terrorist. Is a positive outcome likely? Well, for obvious reasons, terrorist attacks tend to happen in very public places. And, also for very obvious reasons, when a terrorist attack is underway, there tends to be pandemonium in the immediate vicinity. The question that demands to be asked is what outcome is to be expected by adding (more) flying bullets into an area where people are running around like headless chickens? I would argue, not a particularly good one.

It's also worth noting that not all countries in Europe are members of the EU and terrorist attacks in Europe in recent years have not been restricted to countries that are.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 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.

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