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

Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Violence at all.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
JackWithers has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 438 times Debate No: 99883
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Gun control does not prevent violence. It will either do nothing or make things worse in most circumstances. I understand that gun control does not equal banning guns, but in places where guns have been banned, after the ban rates of robbery, assault and sexual assault have gone up. But say guns weren't banned. Say there were just strict laws put in place. Well, in Canada, when strict gun legislation was put in place, their homicide rate went from 7% to 35% of the homicide rate of the United States. Also, gun control doesn't even prevent people from getting guns. Actually, in England, when handguns were banned, firearm use doubled! Lastly, for more proof that gun control doesn't even control guns, look at China and The Philippines, where guns are virtually banned but can be easily accessed through street vendors. Gun control either does nothing or makes things worse.


Well, to say gun violence is not affected by how easily one can get their hands on a gun seems a little rushed. Gun control may not prevent crimes, but it's a lot harder to instigate a massacre when you are armed with a knife (Assuming we're discussing a hypothetical complete firearm ban) compared to the type of guns legal in the united states (such as the M134 general electric mini-gun or several assault rifles in certain states). Granted, Britain's crime rate did rise after the ban, but if you believe gun control makes things worse, would you support full legalization of any and all weapons, since banning them only makes it worse?
Additional argument:
It's no secret that the majority of lone-wolf shooters are mentally ill in one form or another, and those with that type of disability would be hard-pressed to make the connections required to procure a firearm in an all-out ban.
Debate Round No. 1


Gun control would probably prevent some mass shootings. But overall, it does not decrease overall homicide rates and how many people are killed by others, in many cases increasing that number. In most western countries, the more guns per residents, the safer the country is. Some examples of this are Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway, having 30-45 guns per 100 residents. All these Western countries rank on the top 17 safest countries on the Global Peace Index. Also, those countries all have less than .24 firearm related homicides per 100,000 residents per year. Lastly, one can see that countries with less guns, like Honduras where there are 6 guns per 100 residents, there will likely be more gun violence, like Honduras with nearly 67 homicides per 100,000 residents.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JackWithers 1 year ago
In my argument I accidentally used Britain as an example when you said england, my bad.
Posted by Gregg_Hyde 1 year ago
I mean individually and hypothetically it could. Saying it doesn't prevent violence at all might hurt you.
Posted by agenttim2002 1 year ago
I agree with what you said. Good Luck!
Posted by jaketower555 1 year ago
Forgot to put a source in the first one. I'll also put this source in the second round of the debate:
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.