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

Gun Control

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: 7/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 532 times Debate No: 77484
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Hello. I would like to challenge you to a debate about Gun Control. Hopefully you will accept my challenge. Anyway, I will make my opening argument.

I am not in favor of Gun Control, to put it simply. I believe this policy is not only dangerous to citizens and aids in crime, but the right to bear arms if on of the greatest rights American citizens are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. And while, I believe you do not support the ban of guns, I think also that strictly limiting these rights is also a danger to the liberty of the people, as in many situations, if people had greater access to firearms, some of the greatest genocides and injustices in history would not have occurred, or would not have been on as large of a scale as they were.

Anyway lets take a look at Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun control laws in America. However the city is one of the most violent in America, so to me this does not help the situation, and may even help it. My opponent may argue that this is because some of the neighboring counties do not have strict gun control laws. He is only helping me prove my point.

See, even if you strictly control or ban something, people will almost always be able to find another source, whether it be outside the area, the Black Market, or home made items. Just look at the war on drugs for example. Drugs, such as marijuana and others are illegal, not just highly regulated in this country, but people still get them. This is one of the reasons why I am also opposed to the War on Drugs.

Anyway, you might also argue that we should ban certain types of "Assault Weapons". I will go into the ridiculousness of the way people exploit this label if I need to in future rounds. Anyway, according to the FBI Crime in the United States, 2013 Report, along with past years (1), knives outnumber shotguns and rifles in the sum of how many were used to commit crimes in every year. If you added them together with all of the other options, you get a number that highly surpasses these. In fact in 2013, the number of rifles and shotguns used in total is around 600. The number of knives and everything else not including other firearms is 3800 (rounded from 3799), highly surpassing the number of "Assault Weapons". This number even somewhat rivals the number if handguns, which was 5782. (Note: There were about 1960 firearms of which the type was not stated. These could be distributed in any way to any firearms category). Anyway, I will expand my argument later, as this is my opening statement.



You're correct that I do not believe in any way in banning firearms completely If you do not mind, I would like to format my arument numerically, as it helps me sort out my thoughts easier and I can't see well at the moment.

1) in regards to the rights given by the constitution, the second anendment does not have language that would stop strict or otherwise control on guns. The second anendment is not the general right to bear arms, but the words in the amendment say "the right to bear arms for a well regulated militia shall not be infringed." Unless you are a well regulated militia, gun control to any degree is not unconstitutional. You can still argue to which degree it is a good thing though.
-The degree to which you have gun control is the discussion to have i think, rather than over whether we should have it, as we already have gun control. For example, there are many guns and weaponry that you cannot have already, the banning of which have not resulted in a black market epidemic of people gaining access to them.

2) To address the common mantra of "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." : This sounds great in theory, and may even be applicable in some cases, but on very few. Commonly what would more likley happen if everyone in the room has a gun is that the bad guy draws, then someome else draws to get him, then maybe a third one soes and they no ome can tell who is the good guy or bad guy. More likley than a heroic headline, you would end up woth an OK Corral style shootout. The better option is to try and prevent the "bad guy" from grtting the gun to begin with. Criminal background check, mental health nackground checks i dont think those are terribly mich to ask. Another thing that I really can't think of any argument against is limiting magazine size. Also, to address the black market, yes you could still get thise guns in the black market. However, it would make it more difficult to find the guns, you would be able to find and prosocute the sellers, and also, there would be a limited number of these guns which would eventually go down as time went on, as there would be leas manufacturing of these weapons.

3) To address the violance in Chicago:
-This is one city out of thousands. In other countires like England and others where there is gun control, you have far leas gun violence and no mass shootings like you have in the U.S.
-Guns coming in from outside Chicago is the reaosn that violance has not gone down, and I dont see how that proves your point. In fact, the majority of gun murders were dome with guns from outskde chicago and other gun comtrol coties in illonois, which shows that gun control in Chicago did work, ot was the lack of it in other places that was the problem. This shows, that yes, gun control on a state or municipal level would not work. However, gun control on a federal level may prove far more effective.

All for now.

The US Constitution, Amendment II
Debate Round No. 1


1. I never said that gun control was unconstitutional. I only simply stated that it was one of the greatest rights we had. Sorry if my statement confused you. And, yes I do think we should have some degree of Gun Control (i.e. you can't own a rocket launcher -_- xd) But it should be extremely limited. When I refer to Gun Control, Im not talking about it in regards to RPG'S or Tanks or any other ridicoulsly heavy weaponry of that sort. What Im talking about, is handguns, shotguns, "Assault Weapons" etc...

2. I do believe the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun, fighting experience, or a weapon and the knowledge to use it. I believe that this does indeed work.

You mentioned the OK Corral. I think that incidents like that are somewhat isolated, but I do believe it can happen. And, even though there might be two people armed and another person with bad intentions also armed, the one with bad intentions could seize the opportunity to kill or injure more people. In fact, there have been cases where two people being armed have been successful in preventing murders.

" On January 16th 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, placed on suspension and failing out of school, sought to take revenge. He entered the campus and waved a gun, yelling "Come and get me!". In a matter of seconds, he killed the schools dean, a professor, and a classmate. As panic ensued and the gun shots were heard around campus, students Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges ran to their cars in order to retrieve their guns. Both Gross and Bridges, unaware of the other, approached the shooter from different directions. Ultimately, they cornered him and he dropped his weapon" excerpt from It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong.

Theres also a case where an Oklahoma man, Michael Lish, who carried, noticed his back window open. He went into his house and carefully searched it. The intruder, Billy Jean Tiffey III, jumped out brandishing a sword. Lish pulled out his gun and shot Tiffey. While on the ground, Tiffey attempted to pull out how gun, but Lish fired a second and third shot, killing him. If this man hadn't had his gun with him, he would have likely been dead.

As for Chicago, my point is that criminals will always be able to get guns from somewhere else. And you said it would be good to enforce restrictions on a federal level. Drugs are banned in the United States (well, except Colorado and Washington), but people are still getting them from other places, mostly from the dealers/sellers that smuggle them. Why does this not and why would it not happen for guns?

As for background checks, on the surface, they seem like a good idea, however, doing this would mean having to create lists of individuals, of which I am strongly opposed, as they are, in my opinion, extremely dangerous and authoritarian considering all the government is doing to expand the surveillance state, and the various incursions on freedom they're pushing. They also expand on this by in some areas creating databases of gun owners.

As for England take a look at this
apparently enforcing strict gun control laws was not enough. Now they are asking for you to turn in your knives. Im not sure if knife crimes have skyrocketed (Ill get back to you on that, however I do believe there is a large amount of knife crimes in England, and if I remembered the correctly, that shows criminals will always look for other ways to murder innocent people) or what, but this is really absurd.

anyway, over and out.


1) I wasn't comfused. I was just pointing out that technically, owning a gun is not a right. its legal, but personal firearm ownership is not an inalienable right except in the context of a militia. I was just trying to explain that there is therefore no comstitutional barrier to gun control so it is misleading in my opinion to call it a right.

2) As for the point you made about the ineffectivemess about federal drug law, I think that is actually a good point, though I think you have overlooked two crucial things.
-One is that people generally have note of a desire to get high or to make money selling drugs than getting involved with guns. Theres also the factor that people have addictions to drgus that physically affect them. People overall tend to be more inclined to want some weed or cocaine than an illegal firearm.
- You cant grow guns in your yard or manufacture them in your basement. For most drugs they are miles easier to manufacture than guns and also far easier to transport. much less people have the skillset for building operating firearms than growing pot and making cocaine and meth.
Thats why federal level gun control would be more effective than a federal drug ban which like you, I am very strongly against.

3) In Britain yes people tend to reach for the knife since they do not have access to firearms. Again, two things in regards to that.
-It proves my point that with gun control people are much less likley to have guns, which is why they resort to other weaponry.
- You can't ban knives theyre tools that you need to function. Alternatives to guns are much safer than guns. They are much harder to kill one person with anddefinetly much harder to mass murder with. There was a case in China where a man stabbed 22 schoolchildren. He did not have access to a gun so be used a knofe. Every one of those children survived. had he had a gun, very few if any of them would have lived. Compare that with the United states where we have had so many school shootings they have become a hot issue to discuss.

4) The old west was a time and a place where guns were everywhere and everyone had one. (Obviously hyperbolic but many more people owned and carried firearma than nowadays.) Things like the OK coral we now look at as isolated and i agree. Similar cases like the recent case of the rexas motorcycle gang are isolated. But if for example, in a bank robbery, if everyone had a gun, there would be a shoot out. The second guy that pulls a gun, how do you know he is a good guy and not helping the criminal. You have given anecdotal stories which I before admitted absolutely exist. But if the bad guy disnt have a gun to begin with, you wouldnt need a good guy. The solition to crime isnt shoot-em-up vigilanteism. No one should have to die. If a man, to use the same example, is robbing a bank and threatening people at knifepoint in a case where gun control exists, the penalty for threats but mever actually stabbing anyome should not be death. The punishment for terroristic threats is not capital punishment. Less guns would give the justice system a chance to work.
It's time we face the fact in this country that this degree of mass shootings to the point that they are practically commonplace does not exist anywhere else in the developed world and in non-war zones.

5) What is your opinion on liting magazine size? Whats the reason for anyone to be allowed to have that many bullets in their gun. Make shooters have to reload more. Theres much less practical application for that. You dont need it to hunt or for intruder defense or anything. Im not ecen 100% on banning handguns i just want you to not be a felone first.

6) As for the list of registered gun owners, it isnt like their wouldnt be any indpendant overaight to make sure that it wouldnt be abused. Also, do you vote? You're registered with the government. Were you born? You're registered with the government. Its important for public saftey to have gun owners and felons registered. And if one makes the argument that their freedom is more important than saftey. The constitution does garuntee roght to life. It doesnt garuntee personal gun ownership. Your freedom stops the second the life pr freedom of another is under threat. Children have a right to frel safe in school. People have a right to feel safe walking down the street. i believe that is more important than owning a gun.
US Constitution.
Debate Round No. 2


K. Response time.

2. Although, yes people don't have the same incentive to get guns than to get drugs, as guns don't make you high. However, if someone wants one, they can get them, like the War on Drugs. And although, yes you can't grow guns out of the ground, you can manufacture things with 3D printers. And of course a common criminal is likely not going to have a 3D printer in his basement, it might be a viable option if some kind of crime organization possessed the funds.

As for England, a number of factors, not just their gun control policies can be credited to the low amount of gun violence, mainly their neighbors. For example, France has extremely strict gun control, along with some other nations that are near. As for the knife thing, I was simply pointing out the ridiculousness of England. But lets take a look at another European nation. Switzerland.

"In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles (fully automatic, or "selective fire") stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 models. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million" from Wikipedia

Switzerland does not have strict gun control. Lets take a look at Swiss Crime Statistics.

"In Switzerland, the police registered a total of 527,897 criminal offenses in 2010, including 53 killings and 187 attempted murders. There were 481 cases of rape and 62 attempted rapes.[1] In 2009, 94,574 adults (85% of them male, 47.4% of them Swiss citizens) were convicted under Swiss criminal law. 57.3% of convictions were for traffic offenses" from Wikipedia

53 killings and 187 attempted murders. Pretty low. Theres also this comparison of violent crimes from England to the U.S.

"In the UK there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. "The US has a violent crime rate of 466 [violent] crimes per 100,000 residents." Ben Swann

Even with gun control the UK has more violent crimes than the U.S. Perhaps, if people had guns, they might have been able to defend themselves. Because not everyone is a Krav Mega expert in the field of knives.

It is 10:00 am in New York City. A man in a mask walks into a bank, takes out a gun, and holds up the teller. A man with a gun that was smart enough to pull it out when the man was looking now knows the masked guy at the tellers station is the bank robber. "Down on the ground or I shoot!" and he does get down on the ground.
Most bank robbers usually wear masks while they walk into their target, so there usually relatively easy to distinguish them from everyone else, and as long as you pull your weapon out when your target is in a location you can recognize, and if he commands you to get to the ground or sit down or any thing like that, you will usually be able to know who your target is and not confuse him with a civilian who might also have a gun and is getting up. You might say it could also be any other situation, and in some cases you may be right about this happening, but usually there is some way to distinguish your target from the other civilians.

Makes shooters reload more. Makes innocent civilians trying to stop it reload more. And as I said before, they will likely find a way to get higher capacity magazines from dealers and sellers, in fact, I would think ammunition would be more easy to acquire than guns. So that puts the civilians at a disadvantage.

I have nothing against lists of felons, votes, etc, except if its gun owners. Historically, these have been used to find and disarm populaces. In fact, they have done it in the United States.

"In 1890, during the height of the American Indian "relocation" effort, U.S. troops disarmed the Lakota people en masse "for their own safety and protection" as they were corralled into their new home. Most of the tribe was massacred when a deaf Lakota man refused to surrender his rifle to the federal soldiers.

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt used a foreign attack on an American territory to justify the mass confiscation of guns and other property from thousands of people deemed "enemy aliens" all over the United States. After the confiscation, these disarmed individuals were rounded up and placed in concentration camps."

"In 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans became a veritable disaster area and was rife with violence and vandalism. The government"s solution was to launch a wholesale gun confiscation effort in the city " door-to-door."

Yes it can happen here and has.


1) I'd like to start with the Swiss crime rates. Like you said, other factors must be taken into account. the biggest factor in my opinion is not swiss gun control, but the prison and justice system there whxih is quite diffeerent and focuses more on education and rehabilitation, which has lead to much lower crime rates because the prisoners can go saftley back into society. You could argue that since this is true, then the answer is not gun control, but reforming the justice system. However a combination of these is needed to lower crime rates. The swiss dont threaten their criminals they theyll get shot by a good guy if they commit crime again, they just rehabilitate them. If you can greatly lower crime rates with a reformed justice system, then there really isnt any more positive needs for defensive firearsms. If you dont need them because of high crime rates anymore, the only use left is a dangerous use, hunting which doesnt need a gigantic weapon or giant magazine, or theyll just collect dust in a swiss guys basement.
-in addition, you say their are other factors in low English gun violence because gun control is also present in other surrounding countries like France. That's not a case against gun control it shows that if gun control has widespread adoption it will greatly lower gun violence.

2) To address the idea that people could still buy guns from the black market even with gun control laws in place, this doesnt show that gun control would be ineffective. Maybe less effective than ideal, but still effective. Yes, you could get a three d printer. You could do a lot of things. Its still mich more difficult and leas likley to happen than what has happened woth the war on drugs. The simple fact that the black market is illegal would also help the idea of gun control because the simple illegality would discourage some, but more importantly it would allow for law enforcement to go after these distributers. Roght now you can walk down the street and get a gun. You can also walk down the street and but weed, which is the illegal ome of the two. The difference is if certain guns were illegal, they would be much harder to obtain.

3) Yes, it is one hundred percent true that the United Kingdom has a much higher violent crime rate than the United States. However, the very important distinction you are overlooking is that the murder rate, the rate at which lives are lost do to violent crime, is astronomically lower in the United Kingdom because they do not have guns. Guns are specifically designed for the purpose of ending lives, and they make it much easier to kill people and in some cases a lot of people much easier.

4) As for the government coming after guns, I will address the two examples that you gave. in the case of the Native Americans, I think it is a false notion that this country has not yet evolved to the point where we do not disarm ethnic groups in order to discriminate, relocate, and genocide them.
As for the New Orleans example, that was wrong. But when you pass a law you can't ignore all of the benefits because of this one bad thing that could possibly happen under certain circumstances. in this case, the government siezed property, which is illegal. You can't not pass laws because somebody might break them. Otherwise we just wouldnt have laws. They did something that was illegal. If you register someone when they vote, you cant track them down and stop them from voting because you know they are registered. if the givernment did that it would be wring. Its the same with guns. but the benefits of registering people to vote outweigh the very unlikley possibility that soemething like that would happen.

5) I think magazine sizes should definetely be smaller. Again, the larger magazines would be harder to obtain. Also, Why on earth would an innocent civillian carry around a one hundred round magazine jsut in case a bad guy comes around and has a one hundred round magazine, even if they were legal. it just is not realistic that any signifigant amount of people would do that for self defense. The only people who would carry that around are probably not safe to be around. And not innocent civilian could defend themselves against that. Even if we said the bad guy ran across a good guy with the exact same magazine capacity. The bad guy is peobably going to fire first. Good guy has to take out the gun, get ready, then start shooting and hopefully are trained to use the weapon. If the bad guy has only six bullets, no matter what anyome else does, the risk of damage is still going to be much less. That and it is not the citizens responsibility to serve and protect. That would be law enforcement and the government. People have a right to walk the streets not feeling in constant guard with a firearm and we dont need any shootouts.
We have never had the kind of gun control we need. If gun control ahs a chance of reducing murder rate and gun violence, why in earth wouldn't we at least try it for a sufficient length of time so we could see what the results are. i dint think anyone could convince me that there is a reason to prevent gum controlthat is more valuable than human life.

over and out! (I'm stealing your line its fun)
Debate Round No. 3


Im suing because you stole my line. See you in court. xD. Anyway....

1. Switzerland is an example there can be multiple factors involved in determining a nations crime rate.

2. I think it is a very real possibility that people can get guns from dealers and sellers. In the war on drugs law enforcement does go after these dealers, but it will never eradicate the problem. You say if they were illegal, they would be harder to obtain. That is a valid argument. But I think that the same pretty much applies. It may not be as easy to obtain them compared to Marijuanna or Cocaine, but people will still be able to get them with moderate or easy difficulty. Again, like the war on drugs.

As for the Lakota, I do not believe we would disarm people because of their ethnicity. I listed that to show there was a history. As for New Orleans, you may argue that was an isolated incident. You may also argue Nazi Germany seizing civilian weapons was an isolated incident. I do not believe that a Nazi-Like confiscation could happen here anytime soon.However that was made possible with gun lists.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

- Adolf Hitler, 1935

Also I did not give two examples. I gave 3. In 1941, FDR used a foreign attack on America to justify confiscation of guns and other property from many people, and then placed them in camps. This happened. And although it happened to people of Japanese and Italian ancestry, this could happen and be justified for something like an attack. And while I so not believe this will happen any time soon, it has happened shorter than a century ago.

Widespread adoption of gun control is very unlikely. And like you said, crime has several factors, and in America, it might not just be the absence of strict gun control.

If you banned high capacity magazines, people will just get them from dealers, like drugs. And what is your stance on Medical Magazines! (Lol jk) And yes the average citizen is not likely to carry around a 100 round magazine, one might. And even if we did ban them, they'd be extremely ineffective as someone could just get it from a dealer or illegal manufacturer. And yes people will and can illegally manufacture them.

Also, large corporations involved with the arms industry may be capable of smuggling if they feel it may hurt their business in the extreme. Which in my opinion it likely will.

And as for England, this is from the Crime Prevention Research Center

Every place that has been banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it"s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source here see Table 1.01 and the column marked "Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population"). After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. The homicide rate only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate. Here's the picture that go's along with it


1) Yes Switzerland is a good example of how many factors can effect. I'm bot saying gun control would be the, ironically, magic bullet, but it would help signifigantly in lowering homicide rates like it has in other places. And since it's something that we have never extensively attempted and theres a chance it could help, i believe that we owe it to the people who die on our obscenely high amount of shootings that dont happen in any other developed non warzine nation to at least try and see if we can save lives.

2) It wpuld be more dofficult to obtain them. I do of course acknowledge it wouldnt eradicate the problem in any way, but theres something that i think realy males a difference. That dofference is that marajuana and cocaine do not hurt and kill mass amounts. Part of the reason the war on drus is ridiculous is because we put people in jail sometimes for life for illegal marajuana possession. While I dint advocate that for illegal gun owners, making certain guns illegal makes sense. Also keep in mind that all marajuana and cocaine is banned. Im not advocating for the banning of all guns. Keep your hunting rifles or any guns not specifically designed for use against human beings. People could still have small magazine guns and the like. It would be perfectly legal. It's very unlikely that ordinary citizens who are not dangerous would go through the risk and the trouble of getting an illegal type of gun with a giant magazine or illegally bypassing a background check just to get a gun to use entirley for safe purposes. All drugs are illegal. under gun control, not all guns would be illegal, so there would be leas of a reason for people to use the black market. Also, in a case where someone does want a giant magazined dangerous gun, why would you have it available in a store down the street why not make it illegal and even a little harder for that guy to obtain?

3) Yes, America going NAZI would be made more possible by having gun owners registered, but that won't happen. theres zero indication that a mass gun comfiscation would happen. To pass a public saftey law, we don't necissaruly have to account for something that is incredibly unlikley to ever happen. You included a quote from hitler earlier and i think I have a solution where we can have gun control and not turn into NAZI Germany. We have reasonable gun control (not a gun ban) and then for the next steo, we skip over completely the part where Jews are out into concentration camps and facsism is introduced. I think that the argument that a gun registry would result in aoemthing like that is a slippery slope agument. In addition, that quote is a myth. Hitler did not actually say that nor was gun control part of Hitlers initial rise to power. However, I think it is more the concept we are discussing ao that is irrelevant. But just as a safeguard, I think its rwasonable to also inteoduce legislation about the proper use of the registry and what you're not allowed to do with the informatiom on it. Also, private property is already a constitutionaly garunteed right, so either way you have grounds to defed yourself legally if the situation ever arose, which it wont, where all guns were confiacated from citizens homes. And yes I'm aware of the Japanese internment camps. Again, i think it is fair to say that ideologically, we have evolved as a nation simce the fourties to where that cannot happen. If the government disarmed an entire ethnicity or any group and put them in camps i think there would be complete uproar.

4) I think you're absolutely right that it would hurt some corporations. But what theyre soing is dangerous and bad for the country. Why would we make it easier for them by legalizing it. as of now we cant stop them. If it were legal we could at least attempt it. Also in the case of corporations even more than people, it would be much, much harder at least initially for them to manufacture these weapons and sell them in mass because they would not be able to use at elast any domestic factories and they would lose a portion of the market who would not want to buy illegally. Yes people can still get guns and still get drugs, but for many the risk amd the stigma does serve as a deterrant. And yes it is barder to buy a gun illegally. in my state you can get them from WalMart. That is definetely easier than an illegal gun sale crim ring.

5) In response to you're point about England and thise other areas, i'm going to quote from later in the same report you quoted.

"First, the cross-sectional studies: Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime."

In addition, I can name other places;Australia, Japan.

These places have a nearly insignifigant (No number of murders is insignifigant, im speaking statistically) rat of gun murders. The fact is it is muh easier to kill someone woth a gun than with a knife, and if gun comtrol has a chance of working, I think its our reaponsibility to give it a chance. If it doesnt work, we get rid of it, thats the reasonable thing to do. But we have to own up as a country to the fact that we have the hightest gun murder rate in the developed world and we're the only developed country outside a warzone where mass shootings take place on this scale and this frequently. You cant mass-knife or mass-hammer to death 22 people. I direct you to the chinese studenta example i gave earlier. If reasonable gun control, maybe not even to the level of a handgun ban, but something might cut the numbers of these killings, what could possibly be more important than doing that. I want an answer to that question.
Debate Round No. 4


A law abiding citizen would not go through the trouble to get an illegal gun. I never said they would. But a criminal or criminal organization very well could obtain them with ease. Also you say keep your hunting rifles and that we should ban assault weapons. I don't believed you have addressed my numbers and calculations that I made in the first round stating, overall, assault weapons were used in an extreme minority of violent crimes. Therefore, banning these I think would have little actual effect on crime rates, and as history has shown, prohibition rarely ever works and people would still be able to get them from gun traffickers, illegal manufacture, etc.

You also say that not all guns would be illegal, yet all drugs are. I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. It's kind of like saying, we're going to legalize marijuana, but nothing else, therefore people will not do other drugs like cocaine. Or maybe your trying to say people will just use the legal guns to kill people. And some will, but if people want higher capacity magazines, they will be able to get them. I think what you are saying is hat because some of the category is legal, people won't use the other ones. Again, I point to my early example about drugs. Because marijuanna is legal, but everything else isn't, will not stop people from using other drugs.

A nazi like takeover is unlikely in America, however things like New Orleans are very capable of happening, and FDR imprsioning people in camps, even though not likely in the near future, it does not have to nesaccarily be ethnic based, and something like this could be implanted if they want to take advantage of an event or the populations fear. Also, I do believe that Hitler did say that, and I can provide a link to some of his gun control laws.

"In Nazi Germany the March 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law" from wikipedia

This law also barred Jews from selling and making it significantly harder for them to acquire firearms

As for Japan and Australalia, there can be multiple factors in determining a crime rate, again. Any way sorry for this being so short but I'm typing on my iPhone and I don't have much time.


No worries, I've been tying on my phone most of this debate so I understand.

1) My point was that people are more likley to go to support the black market for drugs because all of them are illegal. with guns, people will gravitate more towards lower capacty legal guns.
- Also, I never said that assault weapons are the only thing I would ban. I would go for several solutions, my point is that there needs to be some sort of regulation thats more than now. I dint necissarily claims to know which refulation would work best with our partivilar situation, though im definetely for a magazine restriction. But maybe instead of banning any gun, we have background checks ad limits on where you can bring the gun.
-Also in addressing your point about the high capacity magazine ban; You say that if we ban high capacity magazines then they would still be available. They would still be harder to get, on one hand, and on the other hand, the sinole fact that they are illegal would help. If you can walk down the street and legally buy a high capacity magazine, no one can stop you. But if your buying it illegaly, we can stop you and prevent a tragedy. You seem to be saying you shouldnt pass a law because someone might break it.

2) Again, you can't not pass gun control in case there might be a mass facist style confiscation. Its a little bit paranoid. You forget that it wasnt just a gun ban or confiscation, a lot of propoganda was required to convince the public to not rise up against the atrocities because they thiught it was for the greater good. Again, I believe it is very reasonabke tosay we have eveolved as a nation to the point where no ine is going to be in a concentration camp.

3) There are many factors that go into a crime rate, but t is a very signifigant pattern that mass shootings on this scale happen no where else on the deceloped non warzone world, and gun control is the common debominator.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Stefy 1 year ago
I was so close XD
Good game!
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Boesball// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (S&G, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con treated the debate with slightly less maturity than pro. Pro's debate was a bit more formal, and I felt pro earned himself/herself a point in conduct. Con used some text language like "K" and "xD". I'm taking points off in spelling and grammar for that.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Displaying "slightly less maturity" is not a solid basis for giving conduct to the other side. Neither is formality. Conduct is usually awarded on the basis of a forfeit or a clear show of bad sportsmanship in the debate. The voter references neither of these from the debate. (2) The presence of text language in the text of a debate doesn't warrant the allocation of S&G points. There has to be some objective fault with the writing of one side, and that fault had to substantially impede the voter's capacity to understand the debate. Merely annoying the voter with uses of text language is insufficient.

Note: A voter does not need to explain any of the points they tied. In this case, the voter chose not to score arguments. That's his choice. If he chooses to do so, he does not need to explain it.
Posted by Boesball 1 year ago
I would like to say that I thought the debates themselves were worthy of a tie. The sources were as well. It was a close debate, and pro wins because of those slight errors I mentioned from con.
Posted by ThatLibertarian 1 year ago
time-to-respond ;D
Posted by Stefy 1 year ago
Why did you write "response time?"
Posted by ThatLibertarian 1 year ago
Thank you :D
Posted by Stefy 1 year ago
lol i justnoticed there were five rounds. Lets do this! Im really enjoying devating woth you by the way. You're really professional. Most people on this site are really immature.
No votes have been placed for this debate.