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

Guns Should NOT Be Restricted

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 97890
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




The U.S government is taking gun control reform too seriously and the best idea is to stop gun control laws. I would like to thank my opponent, whomever it is for his argument and his time. Now I shall begin my argument:
1) Contrary to popular belief, the places with more gun control reform actually have more deaths per year than places where there are less gun control reform such as London. Why? That is because in those countries with more gun control reform, the criminals know that the citizens do not have weapons on them, making thm an easier target for burglary usually using knives. However, when criminals are in an area with less gun control reform- and lets say they own a gun too- they know the risks of breaking into a house where the owner owns a liscensed firearm and they will not risk being injured or killed.
2) The Second Amendment is one of America's oldest laws and it states that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
3) Though some people say that it is the government's right to protect the people, it is also the citizen's right to overthrow he government when they find i not fit to lead. How can civilians fight off a trained military? With firearms.
4)Though some say less gun control reform makes for more terrorists attacks, that is also false due to the thorough background checks. The background checks involve seeing if a person has been to countries of dispute for suspiciously prolonged periods of time and whether or not if that person is mentally ill or if they have a criminal record.


Hi, I am glad to accept this debate

Your first claim, that places with more gun control have more deaths, is false. The deaths per 1,000 people in Australia, a country with more strict gun control laws is 6.9 people out of a thousand. However, in the United States, a place with less gun control that number spikes to 8.4 deaths per thousand. The example you use is London, however, in the UK the rate is much higher at 8.9 deaths per thousand (1). This shows that less gun control does not reduce deaths.
Your second claim, about the Second Amendment also does not hold up. Before the Supreme Court case of Columbia vs Heller most judges and scholars interpreted the amendment as protecting gun ownership for the purpose of military duty. This interpretation makes more logical sense than the modern one due to how the armies were formed in the founding of the United States, where it was less of one unified force and more several state militias combined to fight together (2)
Your third statement implies it is not the government's job to protect the people, instead that they protect themselves. The people do have the right to throw off an oppressive regime, but handing out guns to all sorts of people is not the way to do it, because doing so leads to mass amounts of violence and deaths.
Your final statement of how background checks prevent terrorist attacks or mass shootings, this claim is simply false due to over 82% of guns used in mass shootings being obtained legally (3).

Many other common arguments against gun control are ones such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people". This argument is simply false due to one factor: Guns enable people to kill others much, much more effectively than almost another other weapon, and are so available in the US that it leads to mass instances of this violence and murder, and in 2015 there was at least one of these instances a day (4). This is so much violence in the country that could easily be prevented with stricter gun control laws.

I look forward to seeing your response.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your time.
1) Sure, Australia may be one example, but its isolated application to the entire world is simplistic and ignorant of a broad range of data. For instance, in 1997 Great Britain banned civilian possession of almost all handguns in response to the Dunblane Massacre. The rate of intentional homicide climbed to a peak in 2002, and is still higher today than it was in 1996 (the year before the law took effect.) In addition, countries such as Israel and Switzerland broadly permit home ownership and concealed carry of handguns, and they enjoy relatively low rates of homicide. The evidence for lower crime rates as a result of greater gun control is selective and far from conclusive.
2) The ability to defend oneself against a solitary intruder may be the greater focus of the conversation, but it is not the boundary thereof. The owning and bearing of arms is not only protected under the Constitution as a means of defense against armed burglary, but also against military invasion. If the U.S. Military became incapacitated by, for instance, nuclear efforts, the only remaining line of defense on American soil would be her citizens themselves. Additionally, armed robbery or assault could conceivably be attempted by an armed and organized group, as opposed to a single, armed perpetrator. Banning assault weapons would render any individual powerless against a greater threat than a single invader.
3) Consider the Prohibition " enormous numbers of American citizens disregarded the 1920 amendment that banned the production, transport and sale of alcohol. In fact, the law created an environment which invited an illegal market to develop for the distribution of the substance. Notorious criminals such as Al Capone rose to power by controlling the importation of alcohol to large regions and cities. A widespread ban on gun ownership would produce similar outcomes, with much more deadly consequences. The criminalization (if that's a word) of firearms would result in an influx of devastating gang violence in urban areas, and a government effort to seize citizens" firearms would likely result in dangerous resistance on many fronts.
4) The only people who are affected by gun control laws are people who are inclined to obey laws in the first place. People who commit violent crimes or knowingly break the law in other ways have no reason to obey laws that restrict the acquisition of firearms. People who want to break the law will continue to do so, acquiring the firearms they want by illegal means.
Once again thank you for your time.


I would like to start by addressing your first few points: The reason Australia is a good example is because it is more isolated, and therefore is a better example than any US state could be since guns are more difficult to bring in. You also state that Britain banned handguns, which is true, but only a license is required to own sporting rifles and some types of shotgun. Britain still has much less murder than the US, at only 11 murders per million compared to the US' staggeringly high 42 (1). Additionally, in the 2011/2012 financial year, there were only 39 gun murders in the UK, which is only 7% of the murders for that year (2). This number may seem high, but keep in mind that it is less than half of how many people in the US are killed by guns in a single day (3).

You argue that banning weapons intended for military use to only the military would strip citizens of the ability to defend themselves against an invading force, but I would like to remind you that the likelihood of such a situation is so low that it is the same as saying we need to keep a US National Twinkie Reserve to protect against attacking aliens. You say that a situation would arise by nuclear efforts, but the fact of the matter is if there are any nuclear efforts the world will end, which is called mutually assured destruction. Therefore, this situation is implausible.
Another scenario mentioned is that an organized force was to organize themselves they could burgle the populace. However, this is equally unlikely because of several reasons. The first is that it would simply be expensive and not worth the risk to rob your average US citizen, and the second is that if such a force existed it is the job of our nation's police officers and other law enforcement to stop it, not vigilante squads.

Another point made is that the Prohibition on alcohol, where many Americans ignored this law, but alcohol and firearms are very different things. For one reason, alcohol is an addictive substance, where some people begin to require it to function. Another is that in 1994 a nationwide ban was enacted on assault rifles and large-capacity gun magazines, and it marked a noted decrease in the usage of both of this in crime (4). This is evidence that a nationwide ban on guns does work to stop them from being used in crime, and that criminals do not easily ignore the laws.

I look forward to seeing your response.

Debate Round No. 2


Once again thank you for your time.
1) Because Australia is more isolated and because it becomes more difficult to bring in guns, as you have stated above, that is why Australia is not an effective or conclusive piece of evidence to our argument. You also fail to realize that I have said that INTENTIONAL homicide in the U.K peaked at 2002 and thus, there is no legitimate way to compare that data to the data from the U.S, and we can only deduce that the gun ban in Britain was ineffective.
2) The likelihood of such invasion force is highly possible especially because of terrorism and ISIS who had evaded the French Police, one of the most advanced police forces in the world, and create mass casualties. This could happen at a much greater scale in the U.S. Besides, take a look at the Clown Clan, the South China Sea, North Korea, etc.,etc.,etc.. They all pose a potential threat to the American society.
3) As to the organized force, we have already seen that with terrorists such as ISIS sneaking in illegal firearms. ISIS is a well funded organization, and, given that Trump is now future president, could definitely create havoc that would cause mass civilian casualties if they were unarmed.
Very sorry for the last part.


First, while you do state intentional homicide peaked with the gun ban, you seem to not realize that gun deaths were much lower than before it, proving its effectiveness. To ignore that would be specifically ignoring data to prove your point, since many other things can cause a spike in deaths.

Second, you seem to be implying that Americans should take their guns and form vigilante squads, which would only lead to wrongful death and a departure from our justice system, where every crime is punished by death. The purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the law and prevent these groups from causing mass havoc, this job is not the civilians.

Third, as far as I can tell ISIS has not snuck any weaponry into the United States, in fact, one of their spokesmen thanked the NRA for making it so easy to get guns in America (1). Why would they bother sneaking a gun in when they can get one is less than a week?

Finally, you say that the likelihood of a black market for guns will form, then say that there is no difference to guns and radioactive substances and sex slaves. However, both of those are illegal, which means that if those are, why are guns not? Just because a black market may become more dominant does not mean that the substance should be made legal, otherwise heroin, sex slaves, and all other sorts of dangerous things would become legal.

Thank you for your time in this debate
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Agonist 1 year ago
The Instigator uses an instance of gun restriction in point 4) as a reason that guns should not be restricted.
Posted by Emperor_Edward 1 year ago
Posted by PsionicTurtle 1 year ago
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
You both make great points and I am looking forward to reading more. Good luck to both of you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.