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

Guns should be more regulated in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,041 times Debate No: 43431
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I will argue the con on this topic. If you would like to accept the challenge feel free


I look forward to arguing this topic. I assume that my opponent will be arguing that guns should not be regulated to any greater of an extent than that to which they are currently regulated. I, on the other hand, will argue that guns should be regulated more than they are now ( but not banned outright.)
Debate Round No. 1


TheNamesFizzy forfeited this round.


Cgh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Hello, I apologize for this debate slipping my mind. Looks like it did for my opponent as well so lets just start now.

As a roadmap I will give 2 contentions showing my position on the topic.

First Contention:

1. Gun Control Is No Answer to Crime.
According to a Harvard study in 2009 the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.
For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.
Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate."
And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.
The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.
The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."
In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.

Second Contention
A. Guns are needed to protect ourselves
1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.
2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the "more difficult" of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.
3. After the rise of the Nazi"s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the "Brown Shirts", were arrested and exterminated.
Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts" fate.
4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.
As we"ve seen in the past, guns are a very important of self protection and while some might use a tool with malicious intent we cannot punish all citizens. Regulation does not solve this problem because whether or not it is more regulated someone with malicious intent will find a way to commit a crime whether or not these regulations exist. What we need to focus on instead is actually focusing on how to reduce the amount of this criminals and actually address the problem itself.
Thank you, I urge a vote in the negative.


I apologize as well for letting this debate slip my mind. Since we no longer have as many rounds, I'll just jump right into the debate:

In response to my opponent's first contention:
Numerous studies, also by Harvard, have demonstrated the exact opposite: gun control actually has been shown to lead to fewer homicides. According to a study by Lisa Hepburn and David Hemingway:

"[A] review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

The findings of another Harvard study, by the David Hemingway and Matthew Miller, found that specifically in developed nations more guns can often lead to an increased homicide rate. According to the study, the developed countries where guns were more widely available had markedly higher armed crime rates; these findings held true even when the USA was omitted.

A third Harvard study found that within the US, more guns was generally correlated to a higher armed crime rate. According to the study:

"After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide...This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide."

Incidentally, the Western European countries that are often used as examples (I.e. Norway) are significantly wealthier than the Eastern European countries (Estonia, Belarus, Russia, etc.) that you cited as examples. In fact, Norway is one of the richest and most productive countries in europe. This is the more likely reason for the apparent correlation; more wealth allows more people to buy more guns.

In response to my opponent's second contention:
Your examples all shared a common thread in that they pushed for widespread gun ownership to protect against an oppressive government. Frankly, the fact is that no individual, even with an assault rifle, could defeat the government single-handedly. Even a sizable militia would be able to do little more than terrorize small cities before being wiped out by the government. This seems self-evident, but if you feel that it merits more attention I can address it more thoroughly in the next round.

With that out of the way, I present my arguments for stricter gun control:

1) More guns mean more suicides
In 2010, according to an article published in the Boston Globe, there were more gun-related suicides than homicides; These suicides made up three fifths of all gun related deaths. While you may prefer to think of suicides as planned ordeals that are carefully performed after months of consideration, the truth is that they are usually not planned; they tend to be impulsive, and the widespread availability of Exploding-Instant-Death-Tubes can only increase this staggering statistic. According to Harvard studies by Deborah Azrael, David Hemenway, Steven Lipman, and Matthew Miller:

" After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide... States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment. There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm suicide."

2) Most people favor gun-control laws
Another Harvard study also showed that the general public supports gun control. The majority of adults support strict gun control laws, and this number jumps even higher for common-sense protocols like background checks. According to the study:

"Household gun ownership levels have been decreasing in the United States since the 1980s. Most adults, and even most gun owners, favor most gun control laws short of bans on gun ownership."

Even inside the NRA, the majority of the membership disagrees with the more outspoken leaders, instead opting for some measure of gun control. According to the Harvard study:

" National Rifle Association (NRA) members are similar to other gun owners in many respects, but they are more likely to own six or more guns. Unlike the NRA leadership, both NRA members and non-member gun owners support waiting periods and mandatory registration of handguns."

I have no more to add at this time ,and I am beginning to run out of characters. I respectfully encourage you to vote in favor of gun control. On that note, I turn the debate over to pro.
Debate Round No. 3


TheNamesFizzy forfeited this round.


Although my opponent has forfeited the round, I would like to use this opportunity to present a brief summary of my stance on this issue:

1) Certain types of guns should be banned outright, as they are not necessary to the safety of the general public. Some guns, specifically automatic and semi-automatic guns, pose a direct danger to the community.
2) Background checks should be mandated for all individuals prior to the acquisition of firearms. This common sense measure is supported by the vast majority of U.S. citizens.
3) A tax should be imposed on certain firearms. This would decrease the availability of the guns that are most often used to harm others.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Cgh 3 years ago
If anyone's curious, the studies that I used can be found at under firearms research
Posted by Cgh 3 years ago
Sorry, I meant con (at the end of round 3)
Posted by Cgh 3 years ago
Not off to the best start... I guess the debate slipped both of our minds. Oh, well. In any case, I still look forward to (eventually) debating this topic.
Posted by truthpursuit 3 years ago
What is the format for this debate? As the resolution is written in policy form, are you planning for your opponent to offer a policy case or is this intended to be a fact debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 3 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: Con did not refute Pro, nor post further arguments. It would be nice though if Pro cite the exact sources where he got the information on the footnotes.