The Instigator
tajshar2k
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
jackandace
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gun control does not reduce crime (U.SA only)

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 2 votes the winner is...
tajshar2k
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 943 times Debate No: 75661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

tajshar2k

Pro

I will be arguing that gun bans do not reduce crime in the United States of America.

My opponent will argue that it does.

Good Luck
jackandace

Con

If we get rid of guns, the crime rate will go up 10%

Here is a valid source: http://vimeo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
tajshar2k

Pro

Argument 1: States with strict gun control generally have high homicide rates.



Many people are under the impression that gun bans will reduce crime. However, it is exactly the opposite. A good example would be the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia also has the highest homicide rate in the nation (compared to other states) at a 13.9 per 100,000 homicide rate [1]. Also, keep in mind, that D.C also has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.[2]. So, I believe it is safe to say that Gun control hasn't helped the U.S deter it's homicide rate. Let me take use the state of Vermont, a state that has much less restrictions on guns [3]. Its homicide rate in 2013, was 1.3 per 100,000 [1].


The gun laws of D.C






The gun laws of Vermont




As you can see, Vermont has nearly 0 restrictions on guns. Even allowing open carry. Yet, the homicide rate of Vermont is extremely low compared to D.C, which has restrictions on nearly everything.


i'll post my other arguments in the next round.

[1] http://www.ucrdatatool.gov...
[2] http://handgunlaw.us...
[3] https://www.nraila.org...
jackandace

Con

What would keep people from just stabbing people with knives, broken bottles, or any other sharp object. If you take away guns it's just taking away a commonly used murder weapon and murderers or criminals will just resort to other weapons or make an home made gun
Debate Round No. 2
tajshar2k

Pro

Con is arguing for what I should be arguing for. This is obivious as he clearly didn't bother reading my arguments. I'll give Con one more chance to refute.
jackandace

Con

Abviously con doesn't care about you dumb debate you just stupid and don't think about all the possibilities
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
Seriously though, why the hell did you accept when your opponent was arguing the same thing?
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
But you were arguing the wrong thing...
Posted by jackandace 2 years ago
jackandace
Cause you took it way too far and some people like it short and simple and you over thought it
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
LOL, give me one reason why they would vote for you?
Posted by jackandace 2 years ago
jackandace
Who said they will vote for you
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
I'm going to win when someone votes idiot.
Posted by jackandace 2 years ago
jackandace
It's tied you idiot
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
K thanks for the free win.
Posted by Trainer_Shadow 2 years ago
Trainer_Shadow
I also agree
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
If you can change it to assault weapons (i.e. with high-capacity magazines), I may accept.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
tajshar2kjackandaceTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a detailed argument from reliable sources on the correlation between homicide rates and increased gun control, viz. states with increased gun control have increased homicide rates at well, thus making a statistical case for gun control not having any seeming reduction of crime in the United States. Vermont, with nearly no restrictions on guns, has lower crime rates than the highly gun-restricted Washington D.C., as demonstrated by Pro. Con argued for the opposite side in R2, thus completely contradicting their own resolution. Even that self-contradictory argument was one of bare assertions, thus was completely unjustified. And Con merely showed a source in R1, which does not constitute an argument. Furthermore, Con resorted to an ad hominem attack on Pro in R3, calling him "stupid [for starting a] dumb debate". Resorting to ad hominem is generally considered unacceptable conduct in all debate settings. Thus, arguments and conduct to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
tajshar2kjackandaceTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con insulted Pro by calling him stupid in the last round. Arguments - Con dropped everything Pro brought up and argued for the Pro side, thus conceding. S/G - Con misspelled "obviously" in the last round, used a run-on sentence, and left out a period. Pro had no noticeable errors. Sources - Pro had valid, relevant sources that added to his point, while Con's only source linked to a dog vs cat video which had zero relevance to the debate.