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

Gun Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,055 times Debate No: 13777
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)




Hello and thank you to whom ever decides to except this debate.

First off in order to ensure that this debate runs smoothly I would like to do three things. # 1 define exactly what Pro and Con will be arguing. # 2 establish a criteria for victory and # 3 define important terms.

As the Con side of this debate I will be arguing against gun control which is to say that we should keep current gun laws. The Pro side will argue for a complete ban of guns.

In order to win I must prove that guns benefit our society's safety and freedom. The Pro must prove that banning all guns will benefit our society.To merely prove that guns are bad will not constitute a PRO victory.

Ban: to prohibit, forbid, or bar

Gun: a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive


Contention 1- Freedom: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Banning guns is a direct violation of our second amendment. We as a people are allowed to own guns in order to defend ourselves. Benjamin Franklin once said "Any country that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and loose both."

Contention 2-Self Defense: My opponent may say that there are other means of defense besides guns however none are nearly as effective. If an armed man were to enter your house which would you prefer to confront him with, a can of pepper spray or a gun? I concur that pepper spray does do decent job of stunning the perpetrator but a gun is far more reliable in such a circumstance for a couple of reasons. # 1 a can of pepper spray does not nearly have the same intimidation factor. Often merely demonstrating a gun is enough to send criminals running as in the case of Tom Palmer. Tom Palmer was walking minding his own business one day when a group of men approached him. They said they would kill him and never find the body. Tom pulled out a pistol and didn't even fire it and yet the men ran (source:ABC News). In addition a report shows that during times of self defense the gun is only fired %.99 of the time (source: Wikipedia) this proves that just displaying the gun is good enough to prevent crime. # 2 If violent action was necessary how useful would pepper spray be versus a gun? Even if you did manage to get pepper spray into the perpetrators eyes he wouldn't be dead merely temporarily stunned and during this time he could kill you.

Contention 3- Bans simply don't work: The title says it all bans just don't work. In addition to violating our constitutional rights and violating our self defense gun bans just don't and haven't worked. For example look at automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are illegal unless you have the proper license. But has this kept them out of criminals hands? No, not in the least bit criminals have and commonly posses illegal automatic weapons. The Academy of Sciences was unable to link one single ban of guns to a decrease in crime (source: The Academy of Sciences). During the Washington D.C. gun ban crimes rates actually shot up instead of going down (source:20 20 News). John Stossel a prestigious statistician was actually able to link Gun Controll to an INCREASE in crime.

Conclusion: Well I believe I have made it apparent gun control is in no way good. As I proved in contention 1 its a violation of our freedom. Benjamin Franklin said it all any country that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will loose both and that is exactly what will happen if Gun Control is passed. Self Defense: We need guns to defend our selves, pepper spray is no alternative. Lastly bans don't work. Criminals prefer an unarmed public and Gun Control creates just that. Crimes rates go up with gun control.

When voting remember: A vote for CON is a vote for our freedom, our defense, and our safety.


Thank you for an interesting subject.

Guns are a dangerous article, designed predominantly to injure and/or kill. Possession of guns should be banned. This, of course, does not include law enforcement authorities and the military.

I will now address my opponent's arguments.


My opponent cites the Second Amendment as a reason why rights of gun ownership should be retained. This argument is, of course, circular. The question we are asking in this debate is "should people have the right to own guns?". My opponent's answer, in his first contention, is "yes, they should because they have the right to own guns". Well, if having a right is a sufficient reason to have a right then the issue shouldn't exist at all.

Fortunately, the Constitution provides a means for its own amendment. In fact, this is the very mechanism that was used when the Second Amendment was first put in place. Surely, when that amendment was first proposed, someone might say "no, people should not be granted a constitutional right to own guns because people don't have a constitutional right to own guns". Would such an argument persuade my opponent? Highly unlikely.

The bottom line is that if right of gun ownership is justified then it should be retained and if it's not justified then it should not be. This is so regardless of what the status quo is.


My opponent then says that gun ownership is justified by the (alleged) fact that guns are the most effective means of self-defense. He canvasses alternative (non-lethal) weapons and claims that they are less effective than guns.

Time for some data. In the United States, guns are used in self-defense on average 64,615 times per year (data is from 1990 but it should suffice for comparative purposes). Contrast this with 46,319 homicides and 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns. That's a total of 2,674,851 criminal uses of a gun per year. This figure does not include gun-related accidents. Add to this 16,907 suicides using a gun.

The total figures are now as follows:

Self-defense use – 64,615
Unlawful use - 2,691,758

But we don't stop here.

Accidental non-fatal gun wounds – 23,237 per year (Ibid).

This now brings the total unlawful and accidental use (not including accidental deaths) to 2,714,995 per year.

The total gun use under consideration is then 2,779,610 uses per year.

Of these uses, 64,615 are self-defense uses. This amounts to 2.3%!

What my opponent is saying is that gun ownership is justified by the fact that a mere 2.3% of gun use (against a person, not including sports use or hunting, obviously) is self-defense use.

Can we agree with this justification? Can we agree that the 97.7% wrongful uses justify the 2.3% rightful uses? Of course not.

The bottom line is that guns are used predominantly for the purposes of crime, followed by suicide and accidental shootings. Their use in self-defense is virtually non-existent when compared with these figures.

Add to this the fact that gun accidents kill over 500 American children every year ( with substantial numbers of gun owners holding unsecured and loaded firearms.

3.Bans just don't work

This is the third aspect of my opponent's argument. But if bans don't work, why bother having laws against rape, drug dealing, murder, burglary or theft? Shouldn't we just abolish all law? Of course not! What we should be doing is looking at ways of enforcing bans and of encouraging people to comply with them. Naturally, one way to go about it is to increase penalties for unlawful gun possession.
There is no doubt that the United States has walked itself into a tight corner where vast numbers of guns have been produced and distributed and the process cannot be reversed overnight. Rather, it would have to be implemented gradually and with an appropriate plan in place.


There is no justification for gun ownership. Guns are dangerous. Self-defense use pales in comparison with criminal use. And last but not least, the Constitution has nothing to do with it. It's a red herring. Jesus Christ reportedly said that Sabbath was created for man and not man for Sabbath. The same goes for the Constitution, with respect.
Debate Round No. 1


UrbanEagle forfeited this round.


This is disappointing. I hope my opponent is OK.
Debate Round No. 2


UrbanEagle forfeited this round.


Another forfeited round...
Debate Round No. 3


UrbanEagle forfeited this round.


Am I ugly? Do I smell? Why run?
Debate Round No. 4


UrbanEagle forfeited this round.


Lightkeeper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lightkeeper 6 years ago
Bahahahahahahaha :D
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Don't be so hard on yourself LK. You definitely don't smell!
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
@UrbanEagle: quite true, but I did look into his background and tried to find something to back up your claim. I can't find anything to support the description you used. What is it based on?
Posted by MattPalumbo 6 years ago
"Matt, a lot has changed in the last 200 years."

You're correct, the only thing that hasn't changed is human nature.
Posted by UrbanEagle 6 years ago
ooops! I meant 5 rounds not %
Posted by UrbanEagle 6 years ago
If Lightkeeper does not respond I will deffinately reduce this debate to three rounds, looking back I agree that % rounds is a bit much. @ Woodycanuck just becuase John Stossel has a degree is pshyc does mean he's not a prestigous statatician the fact that he is from Fox also dosen't degrade the information either.
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Matt, a lot has changed in the last 200 years. Can't we be a little more modern about how to resist government opression? You know an armed revolution isn't going to happen. But there will be lots more Waco's, Freemen, etc. Gangs who think they're resisting gov't oppression but are really just heavily armed morons .
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
3 rounds would be more efficant than five, five is too many
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
Why have Pro argue for the complete banning of guns? That position is too limited. Pro could argue for more control than the current scenario which would be a good debate.
Posted by MattPalumbo 7 years ago
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, framer of the second amendment.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MattPalumbo 6 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 6 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04