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

Gun Rights

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 700 times Debate No: 80630
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Listen ok, gun free zones don't work ok. The men who made the constitution and the bill rights said that we have THE RIGHT to bear arms, to say that "they didn't mean military type hardware" you have to remember the arms they had was military grade, just like today. Let's refer to drugs, they're illegal right? Guess what it's still a major problem if we ban guns the exact same thing will happen CRIMINALS WILL GET IT EITHER WAY if one teacher had a gun at columbine then all those lives COULDVE been saved. The argument that gun free zones work is ludicrous because CRIMINALS DONT IBEY LAWS it's a fact cmon man you gotta realize this.


Thanks for the challenge, I'll be happy to argue against you. I'll cover several points.


I'm going to put this out there; the Second Amendment doesn't prevent gun control. The SA only prevents a total ban on all firearms, which is not what gun control advocates want. The 'right to bear arms' can still exist, but we can instigate regulations to ban the most-lethal firearms, background checks and licenses. This is because a 'right to bear arms' doesn't mean 'a inexhaustible right for anyone to bear arms without restrictions'. Want proof of this? Simply observe how children and the severely mentally handicapped are prevented from owning guns.
To conclude, the Second Amendment doesn't say that the right to bear arms is exempt from restrictions. Therefore, we can have gun control without violating the Second Amendment.

Gun control and murder rates

There is a clear negative correlation between countries' gun control laws and national murder rates. Therefore, it is probable that if we instigate stricter gun control, we will see a decrease in murder rates (I presume you think this is a good thing). This is also intuitively obvious; if there are less guns then there are fewer opportunities to use them to kill people.

CountryMurder rate (per 100,000 people) (1)Extent of gun control (2)

Would gun control work?

You compare the gun control argument to the war on drugs. But whilst it may be true that drugs remain a problem despite being illegal, they would be far more prevalent if they were legal. Criminalisation doesn't completely eradicate something, be it guns or drugs, but it is very effective at reducing the amount of guns/drugs.

With your logic, we could say: 'burglary is illegal, but it is still a problem and criminals don't obey the law anyway!' Clearly, this is absurd.
Another example; rapists don't obey the law, but this doesn't render anti-rape laws as pointless.

Therefore, just because shooters don't obey the law, it doesn't invalidate gun control regulation.

Furthermore, not all gun deaths in the USA are caused by hardened criminals. Many are caused by the victim's wife, neighbor or brother - often in the heat of the moment. Even if gun control won't work to prevent criminals from committing gun crime, it will work to prevent these domestic instances of gun crime.

Making it illegal to purchase guns without the proper requirements is also helpful in preventing lethal shootings. Let me explain:

1. Purchasing anything that is illegal isn't an easy process; it takes time, nuance and experience in order to buy an illegal firearm on the black market. At least, it is a lot easier than strolling into your local Walmart and buying a gun on the spur of the moment. The time it takes to seek out an illegal firearm may allow the criminal time to reconsider and calm down (many murders are the result of emotions such as grief or anger).

2. If purchasing an illegal gun is illegal, then there is a chance that the potential-shooter is caught and detained whilst he attempts to purchase a gun. If this happens, then this will prevent a shooting, maybe even a school shooting. If it isn't illegal to purchase a gun, then there is no opportunity to detain the shooter until he has actually shot someone, by which time it is too late.


Of course, there may be cases where guns are used for justified self-defence. But in the majority of cases, 'self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal' (3). Criminal judges stated that the majority of cases where guns are used in self-defence, the manner in which they claimed self-defence was actually illegal (4).
This refutes the notion that guns are necessary or even helpful in matters of self-defence.

Moreover, guns are used more often to intimidate family members than to intimidate intruders. In fact, other weapons are used more often than guns for self-defence - implying that gun control won't leave people defenceless. (5)


To conclude;

1. Partial gun control is constitutional.

2. Gun control is associated with reduced murder rates.

3. Despite the fact that criminals don't obey the law, gun control would still prevent shootings from those who would ordinarily live law-abiding lifestyles. It would also allow potential shooters to be detained if caught when they attempt to purchase an illegal firearm.

4. Most uses of firearms in self-defence are illegal and unhelpful.

5. Guns aren't necessary for one to act in self-defence.

(4) ibid.
Debate Round No. 1


Allen_Shelton forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


Allen_Shelton forfeited this round.


I extend all my arguments. My opponent has consistently failed to respond to them by forfeiting. Hence I invite voters to pick the winner accordingly.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Most mass shootings in America happen in gun free zones
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Full Forfeiture
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: (1) Conduct. Pro forfeits multiple times, so conduct to Con. (2) Arguments. Arguments are a tie, because while Pro's arguments are made of unsourced, bare assertions and multiple appeals to emotion, Con's arguments aren't topical -- they don't argue against *gun rights,* only for gun control. Con concedes that they aren't advocating for complete abolition of gun rights, which is what their position must advocate for. As such, arguments tied.