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

Gun Control in the 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 304 times Debate No: 90663
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I issue a challenge to Shreked4Lyfe so we can argue about a topic that doesn't relate to us.

First round is for acceptance, the rest for debate

Let the games begin and good luck.


I accept, buddy.
Debate Round No. 1


Gun control is a very bad issue in the US. First off, it is much easier for a gunman to access a military-grade assault rifle than it should be. The AR-15 for example is probably the most popular rifle in the US. Sure, it may have a longer barrel and no automatic capability, but it fires the same round and accepts the same attachments as the M16. It's not because they look scary, it's because they are scary. It's much easier to kill someone with an ergonomic rifle with a large magazine than it is with a single shot hunting rifle. If I saw an open carry AR-15 in real life, I'd probably be heading in the other direction. Call me a wimp, but would you have the balls to stand next to a guy with military firearms strapped to his back?

On the topic of "guns don't kill people".
I don't care about that ideology, the simple fact is that a person with a rifle bought over a supermarket counter for $400 is much more likely to kill someone than a guy with his bare fists.

This is all coming from a Canadian, the place with near-impossible gun laws.

Your turn Shreked4Lyfe


Gun control is irrelevant to actually stopping crime. If you look at the complete weapon sweep of australia and Britain, there was no correlation between the weapon sweep at the time and the amount of guns used. Having the right to protect yourself is one of the most basic human rights.
If criminals are bound to kill someone, therefore breaking the law, then, implying gun control majorly happens across the US, then the criminals would have no problems simply breaking the law and obtain a gun.
If you shoot someone in the heart of the forehead with either gun, its going to either kill them or leave disabilities that will last a long long time, honestly I'm not sure which is worse.

But the point is, criminals are going to break the law anyways, restricting guns is only going to take guns away from people who use it in self defense against, you guessed it, criminals.
Debate Round No. 2


Gun Control is pretty much the perfect solution to lowering the crime rate. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, put in place by the Clinton Government was put in place to protect citizens from owning Semi-Automatic weapons that are used frequently in shootings and homicides. It is impossible to determine whether or not this bill was actually effective in reducing homicide rates, but it definitely made it significantly harder for gunmen to gain access to military-grade weapons, which in my opinion is a step in the right direction. As for criminals breaking the law, it would make it significantly riskier to obtain banned weapons, so shooters may have opted for more traditional hunting rifles. Hunting rifles are much harder to take multiple people out with, while restricted weapons are. This may have aided in bringing casualty rates from mass shootings down, which is also a good thing.

Whether or not you shoot someone in the heart and kill them doesn't matter, the calibre of the rifle does though. Take for example a .22, it's a tiny bullet and will do significantly less damage than a military grade 5.56 round, reducing the likelihood of said injuries happening. Gun control can limit sizes of calibres normally available, thus aiding in the probability of survival from being hit in the same place as a 5.56 round.

The average citizen is also highly untrained using a firearm, so having a gun to defend themselves doesn't really aid them all to much. If a badguy were to walk up to a woman with an AR-15 while the woman was carrying a pocket pistol and open fire, will it really help THAT much in defending her life?


The act of 1994 actually did very little to stop any crime, as seen by the statistics: as it was concealed permits that lowered it, and that was before 1994. Hunting rifles will still, if shot in the head, will still kill some one as well, so it doesn't matter much.
It doesn't matter whether or not 3 or 4 people die, it matters if one person plus another person plus another person dies. If you think about what happened in Paris, if one of the people who were in the line of fire, do you really believe that as many people would have died as the amount that did?
Just to show how bad gun control is, Honduras is the murder capital of the world, and guns are banned there. Yet in Switzerland, one of the lowest gun rates in the world, guns are necessary for citizens.
For the average citizen argument, it doesn't take that much training for anyone to take a pistol or a handgun and shoot someone else in the head, killing them.
Back to the murder capital argument though, if you look at the crime rates compared to the amount of guns: it is in the favor of anti gun control.

Why would Mexico and Honduras, where guns are flat out banned, would have such high gun rates, yet Switzerland the exact opposite if guns are banned?
Debate Round No. 3


1: Your Imgur link is broken, but sure, maybe the gun control laws passed did little to stop crime, but they were effective at reducing the amount of military-grade weapons used in shootings. Less Ammo = Less Death, Less Death = More People Alive After Homocides. I think the amount of survivors is more important than the amount of crimes in general, as shootings are generally and unfairly treated as one crime, whereas it should be considered at least 10 different cases of murder in the event that 10 people die in a shooting.

2: The point I'm trying to make about hunting rifles is this: Less Ammo = Less Death

3: Paris doesn't really apply to gun control, those rifles and devices were sourced from the middle-east by a terrorist organisation

4: Switzerland, Mexico and Honduras gun politics have very little to do with US gun control laws. The reason the homicide rate in Honduras is because of the extreme poverty, yet illegal trafficking of firearms is also to blame there, so if firearms and their respective favela gangs were disbanded/weeded out then I can bet you that homicide would become significantly harder to commit then. In reality though, their police force is terrible for that stuff, so I bet any laws there would be effective until the government gets their act together. So, all-in-all, the US is in no position to be compared to a place like Honduras, which is much harder to analyse and pick apart than the US. There are simply just too many variables for a reliable conclusion to be made.

5: Average citizens don't prepare for shootings or partake/pay for gun lessons. Most gun discipline in the US is self-taught or rarely practiced. The NRA has proposed to make gun training required, but so far no bill has been passed to make it so. An average citizen, therefore has inferior training and knowledge than a gunman with a larger gun/calibre. Remember, if you take away that gunman's "black rifle", you take away his ability to harm more people in the same position as the hypothetical woman.

In conclusion, Gun laws may do little to actually stop crime, but they have the potential to reduce murder rates and increase the survivability of an encounter with a murderer.


1. The Imgur link isn't actually broken, click on it yourself and it shows that it takes you to the chart, proving my points.

2. Regardless if there is less ammo, that still means that more than one person could die either or, and the criminal could easily just bring more ammo.

3. Which exactly proves my point. The criminals brought the guns illegally into the country to do terror acts, which is what I've been saying this entire time. If one of those hundreds of people had one gun, that would have limited the amounts of death in Paris.

4. Illegal trafficking of firearms would happen in the US if they banned guns as well, making it no better than Mexico or the rest of Central America. It would be a downhill spiral into more poverty and all that rampant problems we see there today. You never addressed the Swiss point though, every citizen there has a gun by law.

5. Once again, it doesn't not take training to pull a trigger on a handgun and killing someone, training for higher up firearms i can understand, but that doesn't make them necessary, I do believe the NRA bill should pass however.

In conclusion, gun control is irrelevant to the issue of stopping crime and does nothing to help or aid the victim, and does more to help the criminal, who is breaking the law regardless, so illegal firearm trafficking would be much more rampant.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.