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

Gun Control is necessary for a stable society.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 241 times Debate No: 93017
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




1st round is for acceptance, and acceptance alone.

Upon accepting, you will acknowledge the following definitions and terms in the debate.

Gun: A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force.
Control: (In this instance) to determine the behaviour or supervise the running of Guns and firearms.

Round 1: Opening Arguments
Round 2: More Arguments & Rebuttals
Round 3: Finishing Statements & Rebuttal

No counter arguing or rebuttal is to occur in the 1st round, save your ammunition for the 2nd round.

And please, no trolling, respect our opinions and differences, and just keep within common sense.

Alrighty, :)


Strict gun control is not a necessary ingredient to the making of a stable society. Of course, you need rules to keep criminals from doing more criminal activity with weapons, that doesn't mean you should impose restrictions on the mass.

To say you need strict measures for a country to become stable is not true. Guns are a medium in which violence is to be used. Imposing restrictions on guns would mean those who wish to do harm to others would look for other ways to enact their deeds.

If you want to stop the violence you would need to impose restrictions on every possible way a man could kill another man. Of course, some ways are easier to kill. For example, a gun is very much easier to kill than a with your hand. But people are not dumb if they truly wish to cause harm to the world there are many places where they can get weapons. A bomb can be made from household items. It's that easy. Well, all they need is an internet connection.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, con for making this debate possible. I look forward to seeing the outcome of this debate.

Let me start by disregarding how important gun control is for the creation of a stable society, we can all agree that a stable crime free environment, is imperative to a utopian model stable society. I understand that we need rules to prevent criminals from doing more criminal activity, however it is imperative that to the overall masses, there needs to be gun laws to prevent future crimes.

Criminals are people who have already committed a crime, but this bracket removes the possibility of future criminals from the masses. It is important to notice this difference. Rules should apply to criminals, of course. However rules should apply to non-criminals to create difficulty for future criminals to use such a weapon as a medium to carry their evil deeds.

Let me also highlight, the simplicity of people using guns to carry out their deeds. All it takes it to grab a weapon, a few rounds and with little to no planning, time and effort you have a dozen dead people in a mass shooting, as well as the cops chasing you down furiously. Now, I understand that if we do impose gun laws that criminals will find other ways to enact their violence, but this does come with it"s benefits, for example as I mentioned before, the simplicity of becoming a mass murderer with a gun. Other methods take a lot more time and effort than just picking up a firearm, and clicking the trigger. Bombs for instance, require hours, days or weeks of effort, and with this time, it gives people more time to notice their evil deeds and other suspicious activities. By making the criminals have to go to longer lengths, it makes the community able to pinpoint suspicious activities and to catch the criminal at hand.

Regardless of how they conduct their methods, the amount that they do it is more concerning. By placing gun control, it removes the simplicity of merely picking up the firearm, holding the trigger, and having dozen bodies scattered in front of you.


Yep, it's my first debate so I'm sorry if I say something weird. Also I am not trying to sound heartless, forgive me for sounding so cruel when I talk about homicides or mass shootings it's not intetional. I'm just trying not to bring emotion into my arguments, and keeping statistics and facts the priority.

First of all we should state the amount of gun control we are debating because we both understand we have to keep rules in place to keep the criminals from getting guns. I am debating on a low gun control for the mass, such as background checks to see who is able to own a gun, (distinguishing criminals from non-criminals) assuming it is enforced correctly and perfectly. Of course there has to be a way of distinguishing them, legal gun-venders can't be just selling guns left and right.

There is no sure way of preventing future cime. You can merely assume that doing one thing will prevent it. Any person is liable to human emotion. In the moment people may lose their composure, and get very violent. There could be a fight, and it might get worse from there. No person is able to escape their emotion. To prevent it you would need to keep the person from owning a weapon. But what if that person is a model citizen, only at that time, they lost their ability to reason. There would be no way of knowing if he was to commit a crime.

I don't think a stable enviroment is free of crime, the crime may be kept to a minimum but it will exist. Crime would be free in a utopian society, but that would simply be impossible, or highly improbable. In order for that to happen every human in that community would have to be hate free.

It is simple for a person to pick up a gun and kill someone, but it just as easy as using a knife. It is also very easy to make a bomb. It is no secret on the internet it could just take an hour. In that same hour it would take a future shooter to go to the store and pick up ammunition. Yes the shooter can buy ammunition little by little day by day. Both have the possibility of raising suspicion, but shooter buying the ammunition would cause more uncertainty. As the bomber just needs to be in the safety of his home.

When you talk about the mass shootings you do not realize that mass shootings have a very small percentage relation in gun homicides. They also take place in places where gun-free zones. Mass shootings get so much media coverage that people may think these things happen often. I don't mean often in the amount of time it takes place over the last century. In fact over half of gun deaths are caused by suicides. Killing yourself with a gun is just as easy as popping a handful of pills, and digesting them to kill yourself, or merely jumping off a high place. (Forgive me, I sound heartless) I don't think it would matter to someone who wants to end their life how they're going to do it.
Debate Round No. 2


I understand that a utopian society is highly improbable to ever exist, however I am being optimistic that we can reach somewhere close to the utopian society, or even to say the least move towards it more than we are currently today. As long as society advances, it should strive to advance towards a utopian society.

The model of gun control I am proposing, is identical to the British Firearms act of 1968, in this model all handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles are prohibited from use, however a few pistols are licensed for use, but are under strict watch from police. Let me also state, that gun ranges are licensed to let people use these weapons prohibited to the public, as long as they do not leave the range. We aren't just removing guns from the system, we"re monitoring them. And if anyone wants to go have a shoot, go to a guns range. It"s as simple as that.

Let me also highlight the brutal effectiveness of this system. Britain"s homicide rate per 100,000 people is 0.22, USA on the other hand. is 3.90. Although bad, it isn't as bad as the US Virgin Islands, with 52.6. The effectiveness of this system, is highlighted through statistics. Britain has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. And although, they have the ability to pick up a knife instead of a gun.

Did they? Guns cause violence, and they are the easiest way to let impulses of emotion run loose. In 1996, the Port Arthur Massacre in Australia is an example of this. A young man who was mentally troubled, picked up a gun and killed 3 dozen people, as well as burning 3 hostages before surrendering to police. This highlights the ratio of effort and destruction of a firearm. If firearms were more controlled, he would still have emotional impulses, and go for the next best thing. A knife. However, the ratio effort and destruction is drastically different. It isn't as easy as clicking a trigger, and having a dozen dead people in front of you. You need to chase after people, and those people have time to run away and get to safety. It also means less deaths overall.

I don't mean to sound heartless when I say that, but it"s true. A knife is a lot harder to mass murder with, than a gun is.

Regardless of mass shootings, or not, it"s quite clear that following a British model is a lot more beneficial. The homicide rate in Britain was approximately at 3.96 in 1915, remaining there until 1968 when the Brit"s adopted this system. From then, the homicide rate fell to 0.22 (where it is today). Homicide not being suicide, of course.

History highlights politics effectiveness, and most certainly it gives this system the thumbs-up. And as con stated, there is no sure way to determine what prevents future crime, or what will even work. However time shows us what works, and what doesn"t. The British model does however function in the way it was designed. Evidence for this is found in history, from the drastic change of 3.96 to 0.22.


I understand, we all wish to strive to a Utopian society. But in a Utopian society there would be a means of effectively shutting down a crime as soon as the potential danger ensured. It will be hundreds of years before we have some way of doing that without turning the society into a complete military state.

Yes Britain has a low crime rate but so do many countries with low gun control like. But it can also be claimed that countries with a strict gun control have the highest crime rate of the industrialized countries like Mexico. Mexico has a high crime rate of 11.23 per 100,000 gun crimes yet they also have similar gun laws to that of Britain. How are these countries vastly different in crime rate. There are also countries with low gun control and low crime rate,For example, Switzerland have .77 deaths per 100,000 people. If they want to buy a gun it is easy as getting a drivers license. They have to prove they are mentally capable to own a gun.In reality the only things they ban is assault rifles although if a man has served in the military he has able to keep his weapon. Gun control is not an effective way of reducing crime. This also mean having more guns is also not an effective way of reducing crime. So the problem lies elsewhere.

Although guns are the easiest way to kill someone they are also the easiest way to protect yourself. Most likely if somebody in one of the massacres was carrying a concealed weapons (Any of the US Massacres) by legal means, meaning they got a concealed weapon permit from the state, the murder would be put down far more quickly than waiting for the police who never came on time. There are times when a man carrying a concealed weapon has saved the day. There was a uber driver in Chicago who shot a man who opened fire in a crowd in Logan Square.

Most likely the reason it was effective for Britain was because of their culture. Within the U.S there are countries with high crime rate but yet they also have the strictest gun control. There are also places where historically a very harsh restriction on gun ownership was placed yet the murder rate increased. In Jamaica gun related deaths were 35.22 per 100,000 people. History goes in both ways it doesn't just acknowledge the good gun restrictions have done.

As I mentioned before gun control is not an effective way of reducing crime neither is no gun control.
Debate Round No. 3


76km forfeited this round.


Rodnunez2195 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Rodnunez2195 3 months ago
Sorry I did not know what you meant by acceptance I thought I was supposed to start the debate. I didn't know.
No votes have been placed for this debate.