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

Do firearms decrease crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/11/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,405 times Debate No: 20347
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




I thank my opponent for the chance of this debate, and as affirmative, I will be arguing that firearms in of themselves do NOT serve to decrease crime rates.

For definitions, I will offer the following:
1> Firearm: a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc [1]
2> Decrease: to diminish or lessen in extent, quantity, strength, power, etc [1]
3> Crime: an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. [1]

Thank you, and I will await my opponent's acceptance. Structure of this debate will be as always; first of acceptance, second for cases, and third for refutations/summaries. Have fun!


i thank you for the chance to debate this

words by them selves have a meaning while alone but as in science when they r put together they create a differnce in science sodium in concentration is daedly so is chlorine in minor or major cases is deadly but when combined they create a item which not only do we enjoy on food but our body needs the same is with words the indivdual meaning of words means one thing but the idea behind them is another while most people would think that guns being made illeagal would decrease crime this is not true if you take away a gun they still have knives clubs ect. but you r taking away from an ideal physical a mental deterant aginst crime see if i am going to invade a house where someone lives then my first worry is what do they have if they a gun i am less likly to invade for fear of my life however if i am to invade and guns r illegal if have a knife and if my target is a woman ( sorry ladies ) and i go to the gym so i am pretty strong i can easily out match her in strength but if she has a gun then she has no limit to reach and strength
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for his response, and yet I find it hard, for all the effort that I have made in deciphering the meaning of his speech, to understand what my opponent is trying to endorse.

However, as merely a wild guess at what what PRO is trying to achieve, it seems vaguely that he advocates that guns are weapons that give further advantages to 'women', for which according to PRO, are in danger from individuals who possess weapons.

In such a context, we find the central thrust of his arguments to be the deterrant effect of the presence of firearms. However, even as PRO brings up himself, it is the intrinsic nature of my intention that causes crime, instead of the presence or mere possession of firearms. Now, as I will be introducing this as a main argument as well, I would like only to briefly touch upon such a point in passing refutation of my opponent's only point.

Now, it becomes explicitly clear that an obvious contradiction exists within the premises and assumptions of my opponent's case. Indeed, he states that in the case and hypothetical situation where the individual is missing a gun due to the illegal nature and ban of firearms, and yet is deterred from invading a home where the target has a firearm, the obvious contradiction resides in the contrary assumptions. If firearms were indeed illegal, then the target her/himself would be devoid of possession as well, and as such the deterrance as he states is invalid.

Indeed, the central thrust of my opponent's case resides in such a point, and only just a point. As such, I have not only provided sufficient refutations against his hardly coherent argument, but also provided the justification for the implausibility of his contradictory statements.

As such, I would like to present only a single argument, as my lack of time due to real-life concerns only allows me to do so. Now, I would like to point out the inherent point that the intrinsic nature of a crime is dependant upon the intent of the violator. The intrinsic intent of the perpetrator of the crime is the deciding factor for whether or not the crime is committed.

To exemplify such a fact, an individual, if he/she actually possesses the intrinsic intent to perpetrate a crime, would not be deterred by the spectrum or limitation of choice of weapons. The inherent intent of the perpetrator determines on a social context whether or not he/she actually chooses to do so. Firearms are only a medium by which such perpetrators of crime may convey their true intent to commit crime and violate social harmony.

Indeed, it is only a group of weapons for which forms only a miniscule portion of the variety of objects that may be used as weapons for crime. As such, it thus actually only comes down to the intrinsic intention of the individual that forms the deciding factor for whether such an individual turns into the perpetrator of a crime or merely another innocent resident in our social community.

Now, as my opponent, as PRO, fails to make not only a coherent argument, but also one with a valid and adequate justification, on the contrary a contradictory one, there remains no argument actually for which we may look to on his part. And as I have provided sufficient reason for which firearms in of themselves do not serve to decrease crime, due to the dependance upon the intrinsic intent of the perpetrator, not the medium, I strongly urge a CON vote. Thank you.


I do appoligize for my lack of grammer and will attempt to clean it up.

No i am not saying that guns would be illeagal in both but in one. See while they r leagal you stop people from always robing houses cause they r scared the person has a gun. They r also scared of the reach and the fact that strenght cant help you when you have been shot. However if guns where illeagal if i enter the and im a rober i have a knife i can attack and if i am stronger than the other person i can kill them and possibly many more ( i said woman because men r naturaly stronger not that they r the only one )
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his response.

Now, we look to the central thrust of his argument, which still resides in the fact that guns provide a better form of protection from other criminals. However, in reality, it is not the form of the weapon available at the criminal's disposal that actually decrease crime. On the contrary, even if we take into consideration my opponent's invalid supposition that the perpetrator of the crime will always be stronger than the victim, it still remains an objective fact that whether firearms are legal or not has no relevance to whether or not it does or does not decrease crime.

In addition, if it were to be true that PRO's assumption of the strength of the perpetrator was so, we would find it imminently clear that it doesn't have relevance to the explicit wording of the resolution. Here, we are currently debating the validity of whether or not crime will be decreased, not the successfulness or probability of success of crime. In the same context, whether or not firearms exist or do not have no relevant impact upon the perpetration of crime.

What my argument is not that guns serve to increase crime, but merely that it is not the gun that actually causes the perpetrator of the crime to do as he/she chooses to, but the intrinsic intention and nature of the perpetrator him/herself. In such a way, we find that PRO fails to connect relevantly to the resolution and to make adequate or sufficient refutations against my points or my rebuttals.

As such, I thank PRO for an interesting debate and strongly urge a CON vote.


well i promised i would skip my turn like i said so i wont fire back. But i would like to point out that no i do not say that he will always be stronger. And that while yes it is true chance is not what we r agruing about i still must point that is the wondering do they have a gun or dont they, do i risk my life if i go in or not.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shougunwar 6 years ago
sorry i know i said i would forfit my turn but i had to set my argument straight
Posted by shougunwar 6 years ago
i have to disagree if you read my argument and sorry i didnt relize i was supose to wait i thought that was your argument so my next round i forfit my turn i guess
Posted by BluePine 6 years ago
yeah firearms don't server to decrease crime rates they serve to increase them :)
Posted by shougunwar 6 years ago
no this is only my secound debate but that dosnt mean im easy pickings
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 6 years ago
nah, he's heavily PRO, so I thought it would be fun. and idk, I didn't check his record, so I didn't know.. lol. noob sniping...
Posted by Angelo 6 years ago
we need moderate gun control no bans though.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
with pro
Posted by vmpire321 6 years ago
Posted by cameronl35 6 years ago
noob sniping...AGAIN?
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 6 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Shogunwar used no grammar at all whatsoever, and did nothing to clear it up. -1 conduct and -1 S