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

Choose a Gun Resolution Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,610 times Debate No: 28406
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (2)




Please read everything below before acceoting. Sadly, it is time for a debate on this. Since Firewolfman here has been very insistent, I will go ahead and challenge him. Here's how this debate is going to work:

Here are the resolutions (I am always pro):
  1. Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime
  2. The Second Amendment Guaruntees Our Right to Bear Arms
  3. Guns Should Be Legal
Choose one of these resolutions and post the resolution of your choice in your round 1 argument. That is all you many post for round 1. No arguments please.


1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized.

Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure:

Round 1: Posting your debate resolution of choice
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)



I accept, and I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate.

My choice, is resolution 'Guns Should Be Legal' and just to clariy, I am con on all these matters and Ron-Paul is pro, as he said.

I wish my opponent the best of luck, and hope we can have a fun, thought-provoking, debate :)

Back to you, Ron-paul.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Firewolfman for accepting this debate. I will be affirming the resolution that guns should be legal in any capacity.

The sphere of my argument is going to revolve around two things: guns' effect on crime, and the constitutionality of guns. First, guns' effect on crime.

I. Crime

Criminal do fear guns. This can be no more explained than with the concept of hot burglary. This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries were hot. In contrast, 13% in America were hot. What is the reason behind this? Because criminals think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns.

Even think of it as something as simple as apples and oranges. In a closed market of only apples and oranges, if the price of apples increases, the demand for apples decreases, and the demand for oranges increases. Apply this to guns and robberies. If the amount of guns increases, the incentive to rob decreases, and there is less crime.

A common misconception is that more guns are used in crime than in defense. However, defensive handgun use is more widespread than crimes committed with guns: "In sum, DGUs are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, even using generous estimates of gun crimes."[4]

This is what three seperate studies conclude:

John Lott summarized, "If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly."[1]

Police studies conclude, "After controlling for an array of factors, including trends before and after the law went into effect, I show that states that enact concealed carry laws are less likely to have a felonious police death and more likely to have lower rates of felonious police deaths after the law is passed. This result is statistically significant in seven of the nine specifications, and the difference between the before and after trends is significant in over half the specifications."[2]

Further evidence concludes, "In this paper, we use a Poisson-lognormal model to analyze intertemporal and geographical variations in the effects of right-to-carry laws on murders, rapes, and robberies. For each of these crime categories, our estimates suggest the existence of statistically significant deterrent effects of right-to-carry laws for the majority of the 10 states that have adopted such laws between 1977 and 1992."[3]

This graph shows that more guns mean less crime:


Here is a chart detailing concealed carry laws's effects on each crime bracket:


And finally, here is a very informative graph on the effect of conceal carry laws on crime:


Guns do reduce crime and thus should be legal.

II. Constitutionality

On its face, the second amendment's language, "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," suggests an intent to guarantee a right which people can effectively enforce. This was invariably what the Founders described on the numerous occasions in which they indicated what they meant by "militia" and that is how the identical "right of the people" language which appears in the first and fourth amendments has always been construed. The following points are offered to support the contention that the language of the second amendment must be taken at face value:

1. The Founding Fathers praised the individual ownership of firearms in terms that would seem extravagant even from today's pro-gun organizations, and thus there is no reason for assuming that individuals were excluded from the right to arms the Founders wrote into the Constitution.

2. There is no support for the assumption that the right is only a collective one because all the political philosophers cited by the Founders affirmed that the individual's right to possess arms is his ultimate guarantee against tyranny.

3. By "militia," the Founders meant "all (militarily capable) males ... bearing arms supplied by themselves".

4. When what was guaranteed by English common law (and confirmed by the English Bill of Rights of 1689) was unequivocally an individual right to keep and bear arms, there is no cause for assuming that its American successor guarantees only an exclusively "collective right"--something that did not exist in any legal system with which the Founding Fathers were familiar.

5. Last, if the Founding Fathers had intended to guarantee an exclusively "collective right," they would not have done so in language which (in light of the English and American legal background) their contemporaries could only--and uniformly did--construe as preserving an individual right.

The evidence for the individual right interpretation is so overwhelming that the existence of an argument which (by studiously ignoring that evidence) degrades the second amendment into a meaningless "collective right" is inexplicable. The readily available explanation is that this "collective right" argument has been written under the influence of a violent antipathy to firearms and a profound belief that their eradication will somehow reduce violence. The effect of that belief upon the discussion of second amendment issues has been so great that a brief consideration of the criminological issues is imperatively necessary, even though it is theoretically irrelevant to the legal considerations involved.[6][7][8][9][10]

Therefore, the ownership of guns is a constitutional right and thus should be legal.

I have provided two proofs as to why guns should be legal - they reduce crime and are protected by the U.S. Constitution.


[1]: Lott, John R. Jr., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies, (1997).
[2]: Mustard, David B. , “The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths” The Journal of Legal Studies, (2001).
[3]: Plassmann, Florenz, and T. Nicolaus Tideman. "Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say," The Journal of Law and Economics, (2001).
[4]: Kleck, Gary and Maltz Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, (1995).
[6]: U.S. Const., amend. II. It is often asserted that the Amendment's reference to a "militia" negates the possibility that an individual right was intended. In fact, in 18th Century English usage, the "militia" was the entire able-bodied adult male population-"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] ... bearing arms supplied by themselves." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939).
[7]: R. H. Lee, Letters From The Federal Farmer to The Republican 169 (Philadelphia, 1787) (a militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ...); 3 J. Elliott, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 386 (2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836); Va. Const. (June 12, 1776): "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people ...."; Sprecher, supra note 1, at n.29.
[8]: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble,...."; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects,...." U.S. Const. amends. I, IV.
[9]: U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939).


I would like to thank my opponent, and I recongnize the fact that I can not present any rebuttals in this round, and that this is the only round for where I can put my arguments.
I would also request that ron-paul offer me a response towards where I asked about the glitch, and strawmanning but I have not recieved a response from Ron-Paul yet, so I await his ruling.

Now onto the debate!

========================NUMBER ONE==========================================
What Violent Crime is Defined as In this Argument:
If I may I would like to request permission of Ron-Paul to post our own debte-defintion of what we define violent crime as. However, I will post my personal/logical definition of 'violent' crimes.

A.) Crimes involving blood loss
B.) Crimes involving unjusticed physical/sexual assaults on person(s)
C.) Crimes involving the injury of an indivual, or any other crime involving a situation where assault is concerned and occurs in.

If my opponent accepts this definition, then please let me know in the next round, as the next round is consisting of rebuttals, and we can use these clearly definitions of 'violent' crimes to help us simplify our arguments and center our debating around these definitions.

=========================NUMBER TWO====================================

For the terms of this argument, we need to come up with common location, (can be a town, state, country, city, or any area that is generally valid in terms of this argument,) as if you go to different areas, you might find that results differ, whereas a more specified, or widespread location would help us simplify the means of how we will argue. For an example, I have provided a bar graph below and the link to it, that shows different violent crime ratios and frequency throughout different locations. [1]

Bar Graph Number One: Different locations throughout the USA,

Website Link:

[[NOTE: For those of you who require further clarification, the Y-Axis, (the one that is on the left side,) lists crimes commited per one thousand residents, and provides number listing all the way up to 60, the X-axis, (the one on the bottom, below the bar graph,) lists which state each bar in the graph is coming from.]]
FURTHER NOTE: I do realize this lists regular crime rates, I have provided further other images that list violent crime rates below, this is just one of a couple graphs so dont't worry.
Source: This is source number [1] in the sources list.

I have also provided other examples to back up this argument, and to help prove my point.
Source: This is source number [2] in the sources list.
Website Link:

Description: I do realize that it is confusing so I have provided this description to help clarify the bar graph: so for all of the black bars in the graph, those are violent crime rates in the USA per 100,000 people, and the white bars list violent crime rates in Canada per 100,000 people; the X-axis lists the year of this data, (data is recorded yearly,) and the Y-axis lists number of crimes per 100,000 people up to 1200.
Source: This is source number [3] in the sources list.
Website Link:
Description: Pretty self-explanitory. I consider this to be one of the most easy to read, and more accurate in terms of this debate, and most relevant out of all of the examples I have provided.

==============================NUMBER THREE==================================

As we all know, the second amendment, which is the right to bear arms, is the stumbling block for most debates that address the issue of gun rights. But again, I must remind our audience, that the constitution only applies in the United States of America, and yet, (not intending to rebutt here,) we have not come to terms as of which location that we are discussing and debating over; as the United States, (as the constitution only applies to the US,) is a much different situation then a place, such as North Korea. I would like to point out that until we can come upon a deciding concerning location, I don't believe that we should consider the constitution, as it only applies to one country, and the debate does not say "Choose a Gun Resolution in Terms of America", or whereas it would seem that that wouldn't make as much sense as if it had been listed in the resolution we are debating, (to see the resolutions look in R1,) as a basic guideline would of been to specify a certain location, as we are now down to 'assuming' and guessing.

I also would like to say that if my opponent specifies the location as America, (which I assume he will, as he includes the constitution in his arguments,) then I would like to have a chance to post an argument concerning amendment two, however I cannot do this if we might be talking about, say Russia-as it would be irrelevant to argue about the American Constitution in Russia, as it only applies in America.

==================================Number Four================================

Concerning my opponents point, (this is a FYI, not meant to be a rebuttal, sorry if it seems that way though,) his arguments are centered around 'Guns Affect on Crime', but I previouly pointed out that the resolution is 'Guns Effect On Violent Crime', not plain regular crime.

However, I offer my opponent the oppurtunity to change the argument, as I can accept the view of con on the resolution of "Guns Effect on Crime", and am open to any ideas that Ron-Paul has on this matter. Also, as a further note, it would be extremely helpfull to our limited debate space if you could post your descision in the comments section, as cmoments are unlimited space, but debate is not unlimited.

If we are arguing over guns affect on regular crime, then could you please provide a chance in R3, for me to present arguments on this topic, as it would be irrelevant to present arguments about guns effect on regular crime if you really meant to put in a 'violent' before crime.

Thank you, and I'm sorry if I seem to be presenting rebuttals, or in your view I'm not meeting the BOP, please notify me if you notice any flaws in my argument and I will do my best to apprehend this.

Sources list:

I would like to notify my audience, and my opposition, that this argument is under the 8k limit, and that the sources list provides link to the images, not the website links, as those are already posted above.

Back to you pro, and please if you wish to respond to some of the flaws, ( from my view, flaws,) use comments to apprehend some of these flaws.

Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank Firewolfman for presenting his arguments. For this round, I will eplain why banning guns would not be the best idea for society.

To begin with, I accept my opponent's definition of a violent crime. Armed robbery should also count in this sphere; however, I'm willing to drop unarmed robbery.

Most of my argument is going to revolve around how guns bans do not decrease violent crime and how, in some cases, those same gun laws can actually increase the rate of violent crime.

Most studies have been able to demonstrate gun control has either no effect on crime or actually increases the crime rate. The findings of many studies, notably one published in the CATO journal report gun control is "The findings of this study that gun control is ineffective in reducing crime rates are consistent with the vast majority of other studies that use state data."[1]

In fact, this data can be compared with other countries: "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)."[2]

Looking directly at countries who have banned, or placed heavy restrictions on the sale or use of guns:
  • Australia: Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.[3]
  • Canada: Canada enacted many gun control laws from 1991 to 1995 while the US has greatly eased restrictions on guns in the same time period: Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.[4]
  • England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.[5][6]
  • Europe: For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe.[2]

Looking at more domestic sources of data:

  • In Chicago, handgun crime increased (but depending on the data I use, the data either claims an increase in crime or a slight decrease. But all of the data agreed initial after the law crime increased).
  • In Washington DC, the homicide rate was 73% higher after their gun ban.
  • In all of the conceal carry states listed, crime decreased.[7]
In fact, "Prior to enactment of the law [mandatory gun ownership for heads of household], Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189."[8]

In general, statistics of countries who ban or place heavy restrictions on guns do not paint a rosy picture of a crime-free lifestyle; in fact, when looking at individual data, not only does crime never decrease in any country after the enactment of a gun law because of said law, but many times, crime rates actually increase.

These two graphs paint the real picture very accurately:

For Ireland:


For Jamaica:


Or when comparing the drastic crime drop in the 1990s, this is what happens when a low-gun country [England] compares to a high-gun country [The United States] in crime drops. The picture tells it all:


When looking at more domestic sources, take the gun laws of the 1960s. No crime drop:


Finally, my opponent tries to make a claim on gun ownership verses gun crimes and tries to show a direct correlation between the two. However, this explains:

"The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)"[2]

To conclude this point:
  • Belarus - guns banned - murder rate 10.40
  • Poland - guns allowed - murder rate 1.98
  • Russia - guns banned - murder rate 20.54[11]

And this comes all from post-Soviet Union countries where crime rates would be expected to be the same. Or not. Why? Becuase of gun bans.

On constitutionality, I am assuming that the location of this law would be the United States of America, and thus dependent on its constitution. However, my opponent claims I cannot use US Constitutionality as a point if I am going to use foreign countries's data in my crime point. Unfortunately for him, this cannot be used to make me drop the constitutionality point. I was simply using other countries's data to back up my claim that more guns means less crime and that less guns means more crime. Foreign countries's data is still relevant to this debate for that reason. I'll explain this point further if necessary.

Finally, my opponent concludes that the resolution never allowed regular crime (non-violent crime) to be mentioned as an argument. However, the resolution of your choice was, "Guns should be legal". This means that any argument that affirms that resolution is relevant. My first argument was on crime altogether, not just violent crime; although, it is doubtful that gun laws would effect non-gun related crimes (i.e. non-violent, unarmed burgularies where a gun is not a target).

I hope I cleared up some of your confusion and thanks for taking the time to address them.


[1]: Moorhouse, John C., and Brent Wanner. “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” Cato Journal(2006).
[3]: Lott, John R. Jr. "Gun laws don't reduce crime." USA Today (May 9, 2002).
[9]: Beltowski, Lech. "How Governments Create Crime: An Overview of Crime Control, Gun Control, People Control and the Loss of Right to Self-Defense".
[10]: U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs - Bureau of Justice Statistics - Crime - State Level - State-by-State and National Trends
[11]: Kates, Don B. and Gary A. Mauser. "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (May 2006).



Firewolfman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Arguments extended.


I cant say how sorry I am for forefeiting that round: all points go to ron in voting as I couldn't post an argument for R3 as a number of horrible events occured: my brother died, my house was robbed; so sorry ron and I apologize for screwing this debate up for you :(
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Those active shooters are not insane, but shameless people; hence, health services are not the solution.
Posted by Ron-Paul 3 years ago

I apologize for not responding sooner.

Anyway, please do not exploit the glitch. However, you may post your sources in an outside link (i.e. create a debate, put sources in it, and post the link in your argument). But please no posting arguments in an outside link, in the comments, or by exploiting the glitch. Thank you.

Also, what do you want to know about strawmanning? Am I missing something?
Posted by Firewolfman 3 years ago
Agh sorry about the shortness-since ron-paul had not responded in terms of my post about the restrictions on 8k glitch, I had to delete and shorten a lot of things but the audience probably wont notice my sneaky shortening xD.

So yah, I had 0 characters happen 4 times so I had to cut a lot of stuff, sorry about that D:
Posted by fulltimestudent 3 years ago
One other prob with making guns illegal--criminals really don't have much respect for the law..all that would guarantee is that law abiding citizens would be less likely to have guns.
Posted by Firewolfman 3 years ago
I would like a response from ron-paul, as I am still wondering whether the usage of the glitch is alowed in this debate, as it takes a good chunk of my characters, (in the rounds for rebuttal,) to crack down on every individual source, as I then have to go through another source, and most of the 'sources', even the ones you used, were posted by individual anonymous users, and I'm still looking through a source inside a source inside a source inside a source-which is a pain in the butt for me.

I also want to know whether I should post my points at I would like addressed immediately like I have done previously, in the comments below-as it might waste both of our precious time, and rounds where we could just get a resolution from unlimited argument space, in the comments, but I can accept the reasoning behind the motives of my opponent if he rejects this notion of using comments for the debate.
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Regardless of the accessibility to the health care system, there are going to be all kind of maniac and sick people always. There are going to be people acting on the heat of the monent no matter what, and people that previously were decent, level-headed, and with a no prior criminal record are going to be involve in crimes. That is why assault rifles should be kept away from the general public.
Posted by fulltimestudent 3 years ago
i dont think that the problem is the guns but the mentality of the people that have them. One guy on the news had a seemingly good suggestion..and that was to make school more than a place for academic education but for emotional education/maturity as well. Also, make mental health more accessible ...when benefits are cut...too often its mental health that goes first because its not seen as something physiologyical and really about health. People that see things like that should read up on psychiatry and "physiological" imbalances in the brain.
Posted by Firewolfman 3 years ago
Just so you know, I most likely will not be able to have enough time to post my argument tonight, so sorry bout that but I only have time to post some of my concerns and thoughts about some things that ron presented.

For source number 5, the link takes you to a page thats called "Graphs, b1tches!" which makes me worry about the validity of this source, but I am currently going over whats been written and most of it seems legitament and valid, but I just wanted to get it out there about that source.

For source number 5, I would like to tell Ron that it is a cryptic maze for me to find the graph, (had to scroll down quite a bit,) and right now I have to go through the sources that the person who used the graph that you used, the sources are where that person got the graph, so its like a picture inside a picture inside a picture currently, so this is very hard for me to look through each of the sources that Ron-Paul has used.

For evidence in case some people don't feel like going through the link, finding the graph, finding the sources that were used for the graph, reading every single report in each source, I've provided screenshots below .

1.) This one is shown as evidence for what I have just discovered, is the actual name of the website you use to back up your claims, and where I found the graph where you have to go through each source.

Link for picture 1:
Original Site, ( that Ron-Paul's graph which he used in debate was from, the original site has the guns and bullets picture, ) link:

I have more things I wanted to post but I have to rest, for now but I realize that this is a rebuttal, but I would like to inform my opponent of these things that I believe to be errors in the sources he used to get his backup evidence-but if not addressed or ron tells me something else, I'll also put this in rebuttal. Await me tommor
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Is mass killing legal? Is taking the law into your own hands legal? Of course not. Then, why do people need assault rifles? Five millions guns presently in the streets, ten millions in the next five years, and fifteen millions in the next ten years; with that being said, if that proliferation does not stop, we will be failing our next generations as to securing a safe environment where children and parents can live in harmony and peace.
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Is mass killing legal? Is taking the law into your own hands legal? Of course not. Then, why do people need assault rifles? Five millions guns presently in the streets, ten millions in the next five years, and fifteen millions in the next ten years; with that being said, if that proliferation does not stop, we will be failing our next generations as to securing a safe environment where children and parents can live in harmony and peace.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.