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

Are guns to blame for mass murders?

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: 1/19/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,424 times Debate No: 29363
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Majority of Americans believe guns are the cause for many mass murders and that action should be taken to deprive all citizens, criminals or not, of their gun ownership rights. I do not believe this is the path the US Government should take nor think it solves any problems. But in other thought, my reasoning is that society is to blame. I play Call of Duty as well as the other war games so I am very familiar with their content and do not look forward for any removal of it but I think in general maybe things like that are to blame for how mature and somewhat corrupt society is today.


I accept your debate and would be more than happy to pick your brain at this topic. I hold that the result of most mass murders are because of the possession of fire-arms, usually of military-class, like assault rifles. I will await for you to present your argument as to why you believe it is society that is the cause and not the weapons themselves.
Debate Round No. 1


First, thank you for accepting my arguement.

Okay, I would like to point out guns have been around for a few hundred years now and was originally a symbol for freedom in American culture. Everyone had one. You would walk to your neighbors house and on the porch, next to the front door, in the bedroom, etc. there was a gun. Likewise there were little to no murders done by people wielding guns. At this time there were also no TV, iPhones, or computers therefore nothing to brainwash or control the people.

"...usually of military class..."
What really is military class? Civilians cannot own "military class" weapons if you mean automatic. And even civilian assault rifles have certain restrictions. The reason they would have them is because they break the law so why create new laws if criminals dont follow the current ones?

Gun ownership is due to the 27 words still followed today. When England started to lead down the path of tyranny over early America, those words came into use as they were used to form the very militias that created the most powerful and influential country in the world. Thats a pretty heavy feat guns hold. To be honest, I wish guns never existed, but they are here and will always be here so if people continue to put a bad name on them, the more and more we fear the wrong thing. Opinions about guns are currently decided by biased news stations or websites, overpowering government, and misinterpretations of the use of guns projected by citizens. All of these contribute to the structure of society.


I thank my opponent for his response.

To begin, I must say that I agree with your points that you have made regarding the origin of weapons in the U.S, although you left out a lot of details, however, I want to keep this debate focused on the question "Are guns to blame for mass murders?"

In this round of the debate, Con has not provided any real statements or evidence that guns are NOT to blame for mass murders. Rather, Con decided he would give us a history lesson on how guns came to be, and also mentioned that due to the lack of technology and the non-existence of the television, that gun crimes were lower.

There is a large fallacy with this argument, however.

The lack of television and spread of information could correlate with less reporting of violence actually taking place. Because information is so easily accessible now, you hear of a violent scenario taking place almost immediately as it is happening. Back then, things could have only been heard through word of mouth or by radio. I also find it peculiar how you refer to the computer, the television, and the iPhones as 'brainwashing' or 'controlling' the people when you, yourself, are using a computer to propose your debate. The computer, the iphone, and the television are easily our best means of getting access to information and keeping up with social trends and the things going on in the world. How you can refer to them as 'brain-washing' because sometimes the mainstream media sensationalizes scenarios or because there are unrealistic 'reality-tv' shows like "Jersey Shore" and other shows that amount to garbage that the masses like to watch. People can choose to watch crap on the television, or look up crap on the internet. It doesn't mean they're brain-washed, it means they're brain-dead.

I would also like to propose evidence that weapons are, in fact, responsible for mass murders in the United States of America. The United States holds the most amount of guns in the entire world, about 88.8 residents out of 100 own a weapon in the U.S since 2007, and in 2012, records show that the U.S owns over 270 million firearms. The mass shootings since the 1920s-2010 have been relatively sparse. Some years had more than others, but for the most part, all the mass shootings stayed at a relatively low number. Until 2012.

Never in history has the United States seen 16 mass shootings in a single year, the year of 2012. 16 mass shootings. This has completely broken the correlation we've seen all the years monitoring gun violence in the United States, and there is no other fault to blame than in the ownership of so many firearms and weapons. Military assault rifles were used in most of these mass shooting incidents, but most of these armed lunatics carried regular firearms on them as well, making your argument that only military assault rifles should be banned and regular firearms to be left alone to be quite moot.

If it were really the television and the way society behaves today to be the cause and inspiration for these mass murders, I would have to ask you why you would pick 2012 and not any year before when we had basically the same society as we have today, the television, similar pop culture. I could argue that pop culture was a lot worse and provocative in the past than it is today. Your argument that it is society to blame for these mass shootings as opposed to weapons of any kind is deeply flawed.

If you look at other countries that are strict on gun ownership laws, you discover that the incidents of mass shootings are incredibly lower than compared to the United States, which, as it stands now, has the highest rate of mass shootings in the whole world. Japan is a perfect example of a country strict on gun laws, and not only is the annual number of mass shootings sitting at zero, that's right, zero, but violent crime is also one of the lowest in the world.

My argument clearly holds that guns are responsible for the mass shootings in the United States of America, and I also personally believed, based on the evidence of what can be observed in other countries, that if the U.S were stricter on gun laws and also possessed less firearms, the mass shootings would decrease significantly.

I now turn the argument over to Con.

Debate Round No. 2


My point through my history lesson is that guns have never been such a problem until now. But are they really a problem now? For US crime stats I prefer the FBI posted crime stats as I know they are a non-biased organization who live off that information. According to their Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1992–2011 table, violent crimes and murders are both at an all time low in fact about 50% lower than 20 years ago. Now if you dig even deeper you can see violent crime or murders done by rifles account for 3.5% of the total violent crime and murder rates. I say rifle because that is choice for these mass murderers, Adam Lanza and such. And even further the AR-15, the style that many politicians are targeting as well as news stations and what many of these killers are using, and maybe what you mean by miltary class, are a small subgroup in the category of rifles. Just think if someone was driving a car and hit someone do you take their car and ban all of that model? That goes for everything! Death by paper cut? Goodbye paper! Both have equal killing power as a firearm.

"If you look at other countries that are strict on gun ownership laws, you discover that the incidents of mass shootings are incredibly lower than compared to the United States, which, as it stands now, has the highest rate of mass shootings in the whole world." "...if the U.S were stricter on gun laws and also possessed less firearms, the mass shootings would decrease significantly."

I do agree that we do have many mass shootings but a shooting is a shooting. If it is one person, shooting. 75 people? Shooting. If you look at Englands homeoffice website (similar to our FBI) England has more violent crimes yet less murders. They also have immensely strict gun laws not even allowing the very rifles or handguns the US has. Now you may think "Why yes no guns means no murders." Wrong. Back to FBI. It says in US metropolitan areas of a population of 250,000 or more the murder rate is double that of the national average and three times more than the next leading area which is of 1,000,000 people or more. The homeoffice comes up with the same information but you have to look even deeper. The US has 186 areas of 250,000 people or more whereas England has 26 areas and within these the murder rate is almost triple that of metropolitan areas in the US so gun laws do not necessarily mean less violence and murders. What if England was US size with the same laws. If you do the math the numbers of murders would be off the charts and the rate of that occuring would make the US look like a walk in the park.

People believe mass murderers make up the bulk of national murders and violence when really it is a small percentage. Why do people think this? Like I said, technology advancements. The problem is that those in control of our news stations, and those who are our so called leaders, are looking to put fear into the people of the US by highlighting those mass murders and picking and choosing which crime stats they want to use. The problem is people see the general perspective of these crime stats and think it is the bulk of a country when really you have to look deep into what really causes these.

What is the problem with society then? The problem is that society as a whole does not see this. Not just people. Things that make us who we all are fail to realize the things that are happening in this country. Things that lead to fear, fear, and more fear. Exactly the way our founding fathers predicted in my history lesson. Exactly how this country is predicted to fall apart.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison;



Corrupted_Ideal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.