CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
10
"Yes" For Gun Control "No" For Gun Control
Debate Score:16
Arguments:13
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 "Yes" For Gun Control (6)
 
 "No" For Gun Control (7)

Debate Creator

Onyxx1606(6) pic



United States Weapon Control

Do you believe that the USA should Pass for gun control? Would it be better for civilians to NOT be able to own a large arsenal of avaliable weapons as they see fit? How do you think the would benifit or hurt us as a Nation?

"Yes" For Gun Control

Side Score: 6
VS.

"No" For Gun Control

Side Score: 10
1 point

Yes. I do support stricter gun laws. The only reason to have a gun is to kill. If your argument is that you need a gun to defend, than your wrong. You could defend yourself with other means. A gun is a weapon used to conquer and control. The military is the only group of people that should be permitted to use these weapons. The police don't NEED guns either. If their not fighting guns, then why need one? A taser is more suitable for subduing an opposing force. For hunting there are alternatives as well. Hunting games.

Side: "Yes" For Gun Control
1 point

Disarmed People = Are Dominated People

Simple as that so do we really want to ban guns?

Side: "No" For Gun Control
1 point

No, for several reasons:

Our first example is not an example at all but pure reason. If you were going up against a murderer coming running at your family and you with a knife, would you rather have a gun or your bare hands to defend yourself? Gun control is a law to regulate citizen guns, but do criminals follow the law? So now let’s say he’s running at you with a gun. Would you rather have a gun or your bare hands? Oh, wait- all your guns are gone due to gun control. Sorry.

Now for an actual example: Rome! The fall of Rome was due to many things, but one above all: the Roman citizens didn’t have weapons. They had grown rich enough that they just hired mercenaries to defend themselves. So when the Visigoths defeated the mercenaries, there was nothing the Romans could do. They just ran. But stay tuned: there’s more!

Fast forward one thousand five hundred years or so: World War Two. The Japanese are thinking that they may be able to invade America. They hold a council of war. When they introduced the idea, commander-in-chief Isoroku Yamamoto (the guy who planned the pearl harbor attack) just laughed and said that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass ( as the army it was in North Africa at the time). Even with the Japanese army, they did not invade America. It was not the only prevented invasion in World War Two. For example, Operation Tannenbaum.

Operation Tannenbaum was an effort to get Switzerland under control of the Axis (the alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan). It was operated between September twenty fifth, nineteen forty and nineteen forty four. The final goal of the operation was to invade Switzerland, but was cancelled. All that gold, and he didn’t try to invade- because at that time, every man was equipped with a machine gun.

Side: "No" For Gun Control
Truth-Out(18) Disputed
1 point

We need stricter background checks for people who want to buy guns. I am not saying to ban guns. And guns should only be sold from government approved stores. Your first example is a hypothetical so I won't even address it. Now as to your actual example of 'Rome. How can you compare an empire that ruled thousands of years ago to a country in 2017? You say that the Visgoths defeated the mercenaries which is true, but you can't compare that to the American military, which is the strongest fighting force that this Earth has seen, no country on Earth can stack up to the U.S. military. You're argument that we should have guns to defend ourselves if the military fails is inadequate, and not thought out. It would have been very difficult to invade America in world war 2 because of America geographic isolation. America would have defeated the Japanese is they pledged a full out invasion.

Side: "Yes" For Gun Control
1 point

Earlier this week, 8 people were killed in New York with a delivery truck. Banning guns will not solve the problem of evil. The one basic right that i feel that all humans have is to choose to live or die. If someone comes at me with the intent to take my life, i have the right to say "no. I'm not dying today." If that means killing that person before they kill me, so be it.

Side: "No" For Gun Control

very simple.

people kill people, period.

guns dont, period. Dont believe me? Put a gun on a table and tell it to kill someone without anyone touching it. sounds stupid right? well, thats your logic so...

Side: "No" For Gun Control
1 point

very simple.

people kill people, period.

guns dont, period.

That's really stupid. Are you saying it is just blind coincidence that guns are involved in 100 percent of gun fatalities? The people themselves might be the ones with the intent to kill, but guns were specifically invented to facilitate that intent. Hence, it is the combination of person plus gun which is such a danger, and neither people nor guns by themselves.

Side: "Yes" For Gun Control
EzioAuditore(13) Disputed
2 points

You cannot stop everyone from having guns, so why stop yourself? You only put yourself at a disadvantage that way, not allowing the law abiding citizen to own a gun because some people might use it to hurt people is like disarming your country's military because a neighboring country committed a war crime.

Side: "No" For Gun Control
Dermot(4907) Disputed
1 point

Guns may not kill people, but people with guns do, and they do so more often and more efficiently than people without guns. People do not behave in a vacuum. They are influenced by their environment, and when that environment is occupied by guns, people behave aggressively and impulsively.

Side: "Yes" For Gun Control