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

I challenge you to a debate over gun regulations!

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,436 times Debate No: 20365
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




If he chooses to accept:
I am for regulations on guns, my opponent, here, is against regulations on guns.

First round: acceptance
Second round: opening arguments
Third round: rebuttal
Fourth round: more rebuttal/defense
Final round: summary/conclusion, no more arguments


no regulation
Debate Round No. 1


I have a few main contentions for why there should be gun regulations.

C1. Overall, more guns=more homicide

According to a study written by Mark Duggan of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a 10% increase in gun ownership is equal to a 2% increase in homicide rates. He came to this conclusion, by analyzing several different factors that guns which are going to be used in crimes are handguns, rather than rifles, because they are the most easy to conceal. That gun owners are most likely to own handguns because they are the easiest to use for self-defense. He also analyzed the sales of a certain gun magazine and analyzing the places it was bought in found that sale of this magazine and the ownership of a handgun was about 1 to 1. (Every person buying the magazine owns at least a single hand-gun). From this he placed his findings in a complicated algorithm along with the FBI, the states, and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data on homicides and found that a 10% increase in gun ownership relates to a 2.14% increase in homicides. (1)

C2. Less guns=less gun homicides

Furthermore, between 1993 and 1998, gun homicides fell by 36% while homicides utilizing some other weapon only fell 18%. In this time period, the GSS estimated that the "share of households with at least one gun fell more than 42% to 35%". This suggests that when there are less guns there are less gun homicides. (1)

C3. Gun ownership has a greater impact on murder rates than murder rates on gun ownership.

Once again using the same paper, people are not much more likely to purchase weapons in order to protect themselves from criminals. Using data from states, the FBI, and NCHS and utilizing a different, much more complex algorithm, it was concluded that a 10% increase in homicide rates only amounted to a .2% increase in gun ownership. Guns increase the murder rate 2.14% while murder increases the gun ownership rate .2%. Shouldn't the 2.14% be protected? (1)

C4. Concealed Carry Laws do not impact gun ownership greatly.

Between 1985 and 1991, ten states passed laws allowing people to carry concealed hand guns. You would obviously expect that since the benefit of owning a concealed weapon was greater the number of people owning a gun would increase substantially. The results of, once again, a different algorithm, was the number of people owning a concealed weapon increased by .0038% a totally insignificant number. The results are about the same at a county level, state level, and decrease at a national level. Even when limited to a certain time frame. (1)

C5. Crime does not decline in high ownership counties.

Let's say it is completely true that crime is decreased as gun ownership increases. Then it would be expected that in local areas which have high gun ownership also have decreased crime. We will assume, for now, that criminals can percieve the difference between high gun ownership counties and low gun-ownership counties. If a criminal really needed to commit a crime would they not just go to a low gun-ownership county and therefore crime decreases in one place but, not in another. But, here we run into a problem, "violent crime did NOT decline significantly more in counties...that had high rates of gun ownership." So what does this suggest? More people carrying guns has a negligible impact on the behavior of criminals.

More guns=more homicide. Les guns=less homicides.



I will just post my arguments as they disprove many of yours.

C1: More guns less crime (usually)

"The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation's murder rate fell to a 45-year low. " [1]

So when gun ownership rose, crime decreased.

"The federal "assault weapon" ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters` agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent." [2]

When gun REGULATIONS EXPIRED crime decreased. Therefore more guns/less regulation f guns = less crime.

"It shouldn't be to surprising that Chicago's murder rates rose after the ban. Every time gun bans have been tried murder rates have risen. In the United States, gun ban proponents have blamed this failure on easy access to guns in nearby states. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning handguns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give gun control supporters such as Mayor Daley and some of the members of the Supreme Court some pause." [3]

A ban, extreme regulation, didn't work. More guns = less crime.

C2: Gun control doesn't work

Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer. This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns. [4]

Didn't do what it was supposed too.

Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. [4]

Even with gun bans they have very high crime and shootings.

Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. [5]


C3: conceal carry lowers crime

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. " [6]

On average, right-to-carry states have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are right-to-carry states. (Data: FBI.) [7]

C4: crime in countries with gun control doesn't = it's gun controls fault.

People like you like to cite some areas with gun control have low crime rates, that is a fallacy:

"This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime. "[8]

Let's look at the UK:

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. [9]

From a British source.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime. [9]

So 20 areas with little guns had high crime rates.

C5: Switzerland, Israel, and Norway

"Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world." [10]

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation. [11]

It has low gun crime and little other problems, in spite of those gun laws, which you think lower crime, little restrictions here = almost no crime.


Israel, which has the most heavily armed populace, has a negligible crime rate. [12]

Both claim the most guns. Either way, still both have low crime.


Homicide -- whether gun-related or otherwise -- is rare in Norway, which reports one of the lowest per-capita homicide rates in Europe. [13]

The rate of private gun ownership in Norway is 31.32 firearms per 100 people [14]
In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, Norway ranked at No. 11 [14]

They have a low crime rate and high gun ownership.

C6: gun accidents

600 gun accidents fatal a year
43,000 car accidents a year. [15]

Wanna control guns b/c of accidents? Then we need to control cars too aghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

No really if you used that argument it would have looked like that to me. So if you want to ever use that argument, gun accidents, then it is a fallacy. If that is a reason then that is a reason to control cars, yet no one talks about that. So really that argument sounds like the funny sentence above.


More guns less crime. I have proven high gun ownership and low regulation crime. Also i have proven gun regulation DOES NOT WORK. VOTE PRO (really you mixed up pro and con :P ). See these funny pics: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
Debate Round No. 2


Alright, since we both have valid sources we will just have to debate which logically is better.

My opponents contentions:

C1. More guns=less crime

As I explained, in crimes involving guns, the main guns used are handguns (revolvers, pistols, etc.) According to the US Justice Departments, 86% of crimes involved a handgun (1). So just giving a correlation between murder rates and gun ownership does NOT prove that more guns=less crime. As you have not answered the question of how many of these guns are hunting rifles? Rifles are the least likely to be used in a crime (3%) and therefore, we cannot use our statistic with any certainty until it is known what percentage is rifles. Without that all you know is that an increase in rifles=a decrease in crime. And as I stated above in my arguments, people are neither more likely or less likely to purchase handguns because of crime or other factors. Since this is true, we now must assume this increase in gun ownership is an increase in rifles with the handgun ownership staying constant.

These regulations you speak of are regulations on buying handguns. Rifles have always been easy to get. But, as I stated above, making it easier to get a gun does not mean more people will buy the gun.

Furthermore, do any of these statistics you cite keep in mind police presence? According to professor of Criminal Justice, Wendy DiMarco (BA, MA, L.D) at The College of New Jersey , Police presence is a larger deterrence to crime than law-abiding gun owners. The more police there are the less crime there will be.

C2. Gun control does not work.
My opponent has not proven here that these murders, in Chicago, would not have happened if it was not for the gun laws nor have they proven that without the gun bans murder rates in Chicago would go down.

Now as for Australia goes, in 1996 laws were passed as a result of mass shootings around Australia. Since that time there have been no mass shootings and "In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 1672 firearm homicides
(annual average 92.9). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 389 firearm homicides" (3). Homicides have been going down.

C3. Conceal carry lowers crime.

People do not care about Concealed Carry laws. Therefore, it cannot have a great impact on the crime rates.

C4. Crime in countries with gun control doesn't = it's gun controls fault

You state it's a fallacy but, I have provided a study performed by a reputable institution proving the exact opposite. There is a correlation.

UK: Guns were banned in 1997, cuts to the British police force began in 1997, police have a more impact on crime than guns.

C5. Switzerland, Israel, Norway

Switzerland: just because there is little gun crime and little regulation does not necessarily mean that it is the lack of regulations that is the cause of this crime. Crime's have roots in socioeconomic problems. Crime is solved by getting rid of these problems. Switzerland does not have as much crime because it has one of the highest per capita incomes ($66,367), one of the lowest unemployment rates (3.4%), and only 4.2% of people are classified as "working poor." (4, 5) This is much higher than the US's per capita income ($39,945) (6), lower than the US unemployment rate (8.5%) (7), and much lower than the US's poverty rate (16.6%) (8). There are less socioeconomic problems in Switzerland thus, there is less crime.

Israel: it's been at war with most countries in the area since it's founding. As such, a majority of it's population is in the military because of this there will be less crimes related to guns. Soldiers are trained and kept to a much higher standard. Also, these soldiers realize that every single man counts in their effort to stay a separate country and not just be overrun by say Iran.

Norway: Once again, Norway does not have the socioeconomic problems the United States has, so obviously they are going to have less crime (9, 10).

C6. gun accidents.

Your argument is a fallacy here's your logic.

S1. Guns, x, cause fatal accidents.
S2. Cars, y, cause accidents which may or may not be fatal.
S3. x is regulated.
S4. y is not regulated.
C. Neither should be regulated because one is and the other is not.

So my question is why not regulate both? You never stated why we should not regulate cars and guns to stop potentially fatal accidents from occurring. Even so there are already regulations with cars. You cannot drive drunk, you must get a license at a certain age before driving, car manufactures have to put certain safety features in the cars, the list goes on and on. In fact, cars are regulated more than guns, and ARE safer than guns.

I declare my opponents argument rebutted and await his response. (sorry about mixing up pro and con haha)

Gun regulation does work and should be implemented.



R1: More guns = less crime

Just because crimes where committed with guns =/= control would work. People have knives. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. A loaded gun that is untouched wouldn't kill, therefore it is the persons actions that do it:

Also he says more gun ownership =/= less crime. But then why when more people get guns why does crime go down?

Despite dire predictions that striking down gun control laws and allowing individuals to exercise their Second Amendment rights would lead to more gun violence, just the opposite is happening, according to recently announced FBI statistics. [1]

All from the source. This says when regulatory laws expired crime decreased.

we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news. [2]


Likewise, law professor Glenn Reynolds writes, "Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. " [3]

one example.

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 [4]

So they are used in defense more then when used for killing. Bannign guns = one less defensive tool. Bad guys woudl still have guns as theyare already criminals, if they plan to kill (if that gievs them life i prison) thn why does a extra few years Hurt? Also the black market.

R2 Gun control doesn't work

Let's use Uganda:

The various tribes have a long tradition of inter-tribal cattle rustling, and the cattle-raiding would undoubtedly be less dangerous if perpetrated with stone-age weapons instead of AK-47s. But as a practical matter, there have been numerous instances of civilians who have voluntarily disarmed, and were then—despite government promises of protection—robbed by the competing tribes who remained armed. [5]

When they where disarmed they where killed. So it doesn;t work vs crime, nor govermental relationships.

Also I said murders increased under the control laws and backed them up with sources.

The main point, however, is that homicide rates have decreased more in the U.S., where guns have become more common, than in Canada: in fact, since 1998, the homicide rate has dropped by 33% in the U.S. while it increased 3% in Canada. [6]

Canada gun laws rose crime

In the U. K., after the introduction of tougher gun control and a prohibition of handguns in 1997, as well as the general repression of self-defence (victims who defend themselves against violent criminals often get more severe sentences than their aggressors), violent crimes have shot up. [6]

Voilent crimes: Murder, assualt, armmed robbery mugging, rape, MURDER etc.

"Utah has the nation's most permissive gun laws, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, but it has one of the lowest murder rates in the country. California, with the strictest laws, has a homicide rate higher than the national average. "[7]

it didn't work in california.

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law [8]

didn't work in DC

R3: Conceal carry laws

You say just because it doesn't afect the amount of guns therefore it can't do anything. This is fase. It will lower crime as if NO one had guns the bad guys (who have them) would just mugg at random. If there are conceal carry laws they think "they might shoot back". If they shoot back then well you might die. It is the deterence of the unknown, I offer evidence you offer a statement:

Gun enthusiasts claim a link between more private citizens carrying concealed weapons and the nation’s dramatic decrease in violent crime. [9]

Makes sense, according to the source coceal carry permits are at a high, and crime is at a low.

In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed. [10]

Thats the detterent. They are scared of commiting crime as, well they have a chance at death themselves. No guns would mean their chance of deathwould drop, less deterence.

Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. [10]

Examples that they lower crime. ^

My 11 source also has reasons WHY these laws deter, reasons above.

When state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent. In 1992, there were 18,469 murders; 79,272 rapes; 538,368 robberies; and 861,103 aggravated assaults in counties without "shall issue" laws. [12]

These shall issue conceal carry laws lowered all crime. This source are written by experts by the way.

R4: Crime in countries with gun control doesn't = it's gun controls fault

You say police have more of an impact then guns, proof?

Also criminals are more affraid of armed citizens then police:

In a vodeo "no guns for jews", a pro gun jewgroup, released goverment stats that 51% of criminals are more affraid of citizens with guns then police. [16]

Another question to criminals:

One reason burglars avoid houses when people are home is that they fear being shot?

35% said they stongly felt that deterrence
39% said it dettered them
rest said no fear of guns [17]

This shows many of them fear citizens with guns, so it is logical more guns less crime. Bannign guns would end this fear.

R5: Israel, switzerland and norway

Having mor eguns = less crime in studies said above. Their gunlaws do impact their crime [18]

Israel: Having war =/= more crime. I talk internal affairs. A war is not crime, it is a war. :P. Also yes havign th etraied troops does help. But still, a soldier with no gun s fairly weak. A well trained armed society is a polite society [19]

Norway: a reason they do not have these problems can be linked to guns as said in my former sources.

R6: gun accidents

My logic is better then what you have put forth. An argument pro regulatory people liek push is that there is a high risk of accident. That was saying if a reason to regulate is accidents then let's regulate cars. And you actually said let's regulate both. A car is a useful tool, a gun is a tool for defence. Either way agreeing we need to regulate cars is foolish.

=no room= [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [15]
"No guns for jews" [16] [17] [18]
Frontsight piatza video (oretation) [19]
Debate Round No. 3


R1. More guns = less crimes.

Your logic guns do not kill people, people kill people is completely correct. But, guns make it easier for people to kill people as it is easier to kill someone with a gun rather than a knife. You see if you have a knife you have to get up close to the person and they WILL fight back if they value their life. With a gun you can be 20 feet away and kill the person. It makes it easier to kill people.

Once again, your source does not distinguish between handguns, which 86% of crimes utilize, and rifles which 3% utilize. Therefore, my source still is valid as it does distinguish between two and, therefore, gun ownership =/= less crime; and more handgun ownership == more crime.

Now as for the crimes stopped, well there would be less crime in the first place without guns.

R2. Gun Control doesn't work.

Uganda: Here's another socioeconomic issue. The key word here is "voluntary" suggesting that they did not want the weapons and choose to get rid of them while others around them did not.

You say murders increase under control law. I say that murders increased because of lowered police presence and socioeconomic issues. Police are the ones who directly control crime.

RIFLES are more common, and more are being bought, which do not contribute much to crime nor are they used for self-defense. Handguns which stay constant contribute the most to crime and for self-defense. That must mean crime with rifles, which never had much of an impact in the total crime, neither do they have much regulation. Basically anyone can buy a rifle. So crime with rifles, something which aren't used for much crime, is decreasing. While crime with handguns is increasing (the biggest factor in gun crime).

Here is a picture of violent gun related crimes in England:
As you can see crime spiked in 1997 then decreased. This is because of a reduced POLICE force.

Your comparing Utah with California...Utah has 2,784,572 people according to the Census Bureau
California has 36,961,664 people. So just wondering, how can you make an accurate comparison between two states with such different populations. Besides you cited source 7....where does that source even say that...

California has a higher homicide rate because of...socioeconomic reasons. Besides you do not distinguish homicides without guns to homicides with guns. All this shows is more people kill in California it could be with knives.

As you can see with Washington DC, that chart shows that the murder rate stays constant from around 1976 until 1987. Then it increases 11 years after the gun law came into effect took place. It increases until 2006. Then in 2008 the gun law is repealed. So nobody can assume it is because of this law that the increase takes place seeing as there were 11 years of stability, even a dip in homicide.

R3. Conceal Carry Laws
Where does it say "ban guns" all regulations do is make it more difficult. Furthermore, if someone points a gun at your head and says "give me your money" it's not going to matter whether he/she has a gun; the mugger has a gun to your head. Your not going to draw your weapon....furthermore, whoever shoots first only has to hit then the other person and guess what they're to distracted to draw their weapon.

If they were criminals how were they deterred from a crime? They already committed a crime obviously they weren't deterred.

Ok prove that these statistics from the FBI are related to solely one another and do not have any other factors in play. Prove their direct relationship.

Once again prove that the statistics you provide have a direct relationship and were not influenced by any other factor.

R4. Crime in countries with gun control

According to Justice Department, police use strategies such as patrolling "Hot Spot Areas" to deter and prevent crime. According to your unverifiable source which provides an unverifiable statistic it does not.

So wouldn't they just rob houses when people are not home? Or "find out if his potential victim is armed"?

R5. Israel, Switzerland, Norway.

First of all, they were statistics not studies. You use a statistic to make your point not be your point.

Switzerland: "one of the advanced nations with strict handgun laws" (your own source).

Israel: I never said a war is a crime. But, most people in USA are not well-trained (or there wouldn't be high murder rates to begin with) so therefore, we're not polite either. Besides, I never say to completely ban guns. Just stricter regulations.

Norway: How does having more guns = having a better economy? That makes no sense.

R6. gun accidents.

Once again I refer back to YOUR original logic.

S1. Guns, x, cause fatal accidents.
S2. Cars, y, cause accidents which may or may not be fatal.
S3. x is regulated.
S4. y is not regulated.
C. Neither should be regulated because one is and the other is not.

We ALREADY regulate cars. Cars cause accidents. So why not regulate guns? Guns cause accidents.


R1: more guns less crime

Let's refute the rifle thing first, this is funny because if you read my early arguments it showed when rifle regulations droped crime lowered. And you concede more hand guns = less crime. So basically that is a gun, more guns = less crime, so oyu basically concede this.

Concurrently, the FBI reports that gun sales – especially of assault-style rifles and handguns, two main targets of gun-control groups – are up at least 12 percent nationally since the election of President Obama [1]

let me say this, assualt RIFLE. RIFLE. Good?

And at the same time:

that violent crimes – including gun crimes – dropped dramatically in the first six months of 2009, with murder down 10 percent across the US as a whole. [1]

now the guns kill people part part:

As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once put it, "guns don't kill people, bullets do." The problem of gun violence begins and ends with bullets, so let's focus on them. [2]

guns dont kill people, bullets do. (I even disgree on that as bullets are just as inanimant)

People kill people. look at source 3 photo, the gun used to be racked and safe, this dumb arse picked it up. It is only danrous with peopel like him.

Now I have been to frontsight firearms training insitutute, gret place to shoot (learn to shoot) defensivly. They made a good point, a gun cannot think, it cannot do anything without a human. So it cannot kill without either a hun pulling trigger, a dumb guy like in source 3, or a crazy. GUNS DO NOT GO OFF IF YOU DON"T TOUCH IT. [4]

Also in my mountian house we tested it out, we loaded a .45 15 round weapon, put it on the counter and mdad said "do no touch this we are seeing if it kills people" it never hurt anyone. A gun itself CANNOT go off unless a human does it. Guns do ot kill people, people kill people.

I will have a few more more guns less crime sources:

This is just one example of the the 4,109 justified defensive gun use instances that occurs on average every day across the US, according to a National Institute of Justice Study. But it’s not just anecdotal evidence saying more guns equals less crimes. There is enough statistical data to support such claims. [5]

His conclusion in that study: 1) Victims who have the ability to defend themselves offer a legitimate deterrence threat and 2) “Criminals…respond rationally to deterrence threats.” [5]

more guns = less crime

now you will say they are crazy. False only % of criminals are crazy, 97% CAN BE DETTERED. So th guns 97% might be dettered, the 3% will still do it. Without guns that 3% will still do it, but more of that 97% will do it. So in all technicalities guns help 97%. These numbers are from 6.

R2: gun control doesn't work

Uganda; i was refering to goverment abuse not crime. Also Hitler, stalin, all gun contorl advocates, experts agree gun control works *face of stalin hitler an Mao on a postar board)

You have no source sbac=king this police claim. I also proved they are more araid of armed people then police, therefore a more populated populace has more of an impact.

Also police are for second ammendment:

According to the 13th annual survey that was sent to 21,000 sheriffs and police chiefs across the country, by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the vast majority of officers believed that citizens should be able to buy guns. [7]

Also let me show you stats on the UK:

A 1998 study by the US Department of Justice found that there were 40 percent more muggings in England, and burglary rates were almost 100 percent higher than in the United States. And, counter-intuitively, rates of crimes using handguns is on the rise. In 1999-2000, crimes using handguns were at a seven year high. [7]

SO their crime rate is higher then ours (and remeber their extreme gun regulations). Also my oponent didn't read under his graph provided, his raph (if you look at it) PROVES MY POINT!

the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban. [8]


That is a DIRECT correlation, after the bans crime was higher, as it was in chicago, DC, and UK. Your graph proves my point, after gun control was passed criem rose. You my opponent have fuled my case.

Oh for that Utah california this it has it at the very bottom second to last paraghaph.

Also They are in the same region, so they have similar socio problems, furth more all of Utah is in one place. SO their crime rate in that one place is just as tightly packed as CA.

Also for DC it rose slightly then rose significantly, then borke the graph. SO yes a huge change happened 11 years later, right after thee was still an increase.

R3: conceal carry

Your case is flawed. Muggers are scared as 97% of them are sane, also if many peopel where armed there may be a witness. Further mor ethey are afraid of armed victims:

Q. do you check if your victem is armed?

51% say yes (agree)
30% said super yes (strongly agree) [10]

So this says they are scared. Let me quote the source:

"Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74% agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot." [10]

If they know or sense your armed they'll leave you alone!

Your criminal and detterence thing. As i said befe 97% are sane, only 3% are undettered.

I have proven the FBI stats = more guns less crime with =like 3 soruces per rou ._.. ALso here is the correlation:

gun sales rise, criem drops

second correlation

gun control laws expire and go away, less crime.

2 examples on how it relates. Read my arguments.

R4: countries with gun control

countries with gun contorl have high crime rates:

Reliable statistics on crime in other parts of the world have been released that show America to be safer than most countries with strict anti-gun laws.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, shows that England has much higher levels of crime than the U.S.

Among industrialized nations, England and Wales rank second overall.

Twenty-six percent of British citizens have been victimized by violent crime. [11]

direct c/p above ^

"From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated" [12]

SP gun contl doesn't lower crime, and canada with high regulation has high crime. Also later on it mentions germeny high rime and gun control. Low on room must move on.

R5 israel etc

Switzerland everyone owns gun, my other sources. Everyone owns a gun: more guns less crime

Israel: peopel are still afraid of armed people. armed peopel = care villans.

Norway: A gun is an industry. Killing a gun indistry would hurt economy. The gun inditry makes: 31 billion dollars per year in the industry (USA) so restricting guns = - 31 billion dollars in economic growth. [13]

out of room. [1] [2] [3]
Front sight, negligent discharge lecture [4] [5]
Front sight lecture [6] (forgot it's name darnit) [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Debate Round No. 4


my opponent asked me to do this so: Vote Con!


Thank you I didn't want to debate another round :) VOTE PRO

I would like to point out I had more sources, and his graph proved my point. VOTE PRO
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 6 years ago
sure sure sure
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
hey bomb wanna end the debate 5th round, just say vote pro/con
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
I'll debate it.
Posted by THEBOMB 6 years ago
THEBOMB's an interesting and relevant debate topic in today's world

Besides just tell me now and we don't have to debate it..declare it a tie instead
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
I debate guns way to much...
Posted by THEBOMB 6 years ago
oh wow...did i really mix up the pro and con....oh well it's arbitrary....
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
oh I understand/.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
I am against gun regulations...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Angelo 6 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 Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel I have no need to vote on arguments, but pro had many more sources, and I looked at the graph, it showed when gun control laws where passed crime rose. sources pro. Also Pro had more evidence on his side from many credible sources, and his refutations where more in depth. So sources easy pro, arguments pro as his refutations where more in depth and his beginning arguments had logical proof. I am now against gun control.