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

Do you think liberal gun laws are promoting increasing crime rates in US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 1/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,909 times Debate No: 29430
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




US govt should come up with better and strict gun control laws./ Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws vary, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws. For instance, some US states have created assault weapon bans that are similar to the expired federal assault weapons ban.

State level laws vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction. Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. In New York, however, the statutory civil rights laws contain a provision virtually identical to the Second Amendment.[1][2] As well, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the protections of the Second Amendment apply against state governments and their political subdivisions (see: McDonald v. Chicago).[3]

Firearm owners are subject to the firearm laws of the state they are in, and not exclusively their state of residence. Reciprocity between states exists in certain situations, such as with regard to concealed carry permits. These are recognized on a state-by-state basis. For example, Idaho recognizes an Oregon permit, but Oregon does not recognize an Idaho permit. Florida issues a license to carry both concealed weapons and firearms, but others license only the concealed carry of firearms. Some states do not recognize out-of-state permits to carry a firearm at all, so it is important to understand the laws of each state when traveling with a handgun.[4]

In many cases, state firearms laws can be considerably less restrictive than federal firearms laws. This does not confer any de jure immunity against prosecution for violations of the federal laws. However, state and local police departments are not legally obligated to enforce federal gun law as per the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Printz v. United States.[5][6]

National sovereignty

Most nations hold the power to protect themselves, others, and police their own territory as a fundamental power vested by sovereignty. However, this power can be lost under certain circumstances: some countries have been forced to disarm by other countries, upon losing a war, or by having arms embargos or sanctions placed on them. Likewise, nations that violate international arms control agreements, even if claiming to be acting within the scope of their national sovereignty, may find themselves with a range of penalties or sanctions regarding firearms placed on them by other nations.

National and regional police and security services enforce their own gun regulations. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) supports the United States' International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) program "to aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to commit acts of international terrorism, to subvert restrictions imposed by other nations on their residents, and to organized crime and narcotics-related activities.[1]
Worldwide politics and legislation

There are many areas of debate into what kinds of firearms, if any, should be allowed to be privately owned, and how, where and when they may be used.
Main article: Gun politics in Australia

Firearm laws in Australia are enforced at a Federal and State level. Gun ownership is accessible to the civilian population, and those persons must comply with 'genuine reasons' to obtain a 'Permit to Acquire' from their State government. 'Genuine Reasons' focus on either hunting and/or sport/target shooting (for Rifles), and do not include 'personal protection.'Handgun licences are also available, and applied for separately. In New South Wales (and similar in other States), firearm ownership is widely prohibited for convicted offenders or those with a history of mental illness. Gun licences must be renewed either annually or every 5 years, and expire automatically (if not renewed prior).

Firearm controls have been in place following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Gun ownership in Australia is not a wide social issue, and major political parties are generally supportive of pro-control legislation (Although parties such as the New South Wales Shooters Party, which represent pro-deregulation, have a small number of seats in State Parliaments).

The rate of homicides involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.1, as compared with 3.3 in the United States.[2] The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.09 as compared with 0.27 in the United States.[3]
Main article: Gun politics in Brazil

All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25[4] and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence.[5] The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be between 14 million and 17 million[5][6] with 9 million of those being unregistered.[4] Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide.[5] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[4] Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;[7] other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.[8] Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere.[8] Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil.[8] Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."[8]

In 2005, a referendum was held in Brazil on the sale of firearms and ammunition to attempt to lower the number of deaths due to guns. Material focused on gun rights in opposition to the gun ban was translated from information from the National Rifle Association, much of which focused on US Constitutional discussions focused around the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.[7] Although the Brazilian Government, the Catholic Church, and the United Nations, among others, fought for the gun ban, the referendum failed at the polls, with 64% of the voters voting no.[4]
Main article: Gun politics in Canada

The stated intent of Canadian firearms laws is to control firearms so as to improve public safety. Canadians have a somewhat limited access to firearms, but are still able to purchase them with relative ease. Licensing provisions of the Firearms Act endeavours to ensure proper training and safe storage.

Users must possess a licence, called a "possession and acquisition licence (PAL)". A firearms safety course must be passed prior to applying for a PAL. A non-resident (i.e., non-Canadian) can have a "non-resident firearms declaration" confirmed by a customs officer, which provides for a temporary 60-day authorization to have a firearm in Canada.[9] There are three categories of firearms for purposes of Canadian law: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Restricted and prohibited weapons may actually be owned and used in limited circumstances.[10]

In Canada firearms fall into one of three categories:

1. Non-Restricted: Long guns with an overall length greater than 26 inches and, if semi-automatic, a barrel which is 18 1/2 inches or longer. These can be possessed with an ordinary PAL, and are the only class of firearms which can be used for hunting, due to the ATT (Authorization to Transport) requirement for Restricted and Prohibited weapons, as well as provincial regulations. This class includes most popular sporting rifles and shotguns.

2. Restricted: This includes handguns wit


I firstly thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this very contentious topic. While I believe that lessening liberal gun rights would be the intuitive response if someone wanted to lower the crime-rate in America (less guns = less crimes with guns), I don"t think it is the correct response. Basically, restricting people"s liberal rights would not affect the crime rate with guns, AND increase the crime rate within the black market (selling of illegal guns). Hypothetically, the crime-rate would increase if guns were banned or to a greater extent restricted.

Central point:
Before I address any of your arguments, I want to make one very important point: guns themselves do not commit crimes; guns are merely tools which are used to commit crimes. If someone wants someone else dead, and guns are not readily available, he or she will simply look for an alternative way to kill that person. This is because people kill others not because guns are available, but because of other reasons.

Brief refutation:
Comparably, the United States of America has far more liberal gun control laws than some of the other countries you have mentioned (Australia, Brazil and Canada). While these are interesting to read, there is a lot of irrelevant information when you consider your resolution (i.e. Merely stating the gun control laws of other countries does not make an argument). However, you did compare Australia"s gun laws with America"s, and then provided these statistics: "The rate of homicides involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.1, as compared with 3.3 in the United States" The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.09 as compared with 0.27 in the United States." Although you have failed to cite these with the place you got these from, I"ll assume that you simply forgot and that these statistics are legitimate. Just because there are more gun related deaths in a country with liberal gun control laws (when compared with a more restricted one), this does not mean that the crime rate would lower if restricted gun laws were implemented. You have to view each case to see why the gun crime happened " simply restricting the ability to own a gun will probably mean that the crimes will be committed with other tools.

Black market:
Stricter gun laws will encourage a black market, especially in a country that is so accustomed to having guns. Think about it: weed is illegal in most parts of the U.S.A, do people still do it? J-Walking is also illegal, do people still do it? People are still going to want to own guns, and because stricter gun regulations would lower the number of people legally allowed to own a gun, this would increase the crime rate as more people are owning a gun illegally.
Debate Round No. 1


neeraj12 forfeited this round.


Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


neeraj12 forfeited this round.


My counter-argument was never address, thus the resolution is negated. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
'US govt should come up with better and strict gun control laws.'

Pretty sure it means 'liberal' as in 'too permissive'.
Posted by Magic8000 5 years ago
I don't understand what you're arguing for. Is the term "liberal" referred to as "open" or the ideology?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by joshuaXlawyer 5 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: He gave up? lol good enough reason Ok yeah I gotcha.