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

Is the glorification of violence in entertainment more to blame for gun crime than guns themselves?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 711 times Debate No: 55822
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




First round is for acceptance.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


First, let me attack the "guns kill" thing that liberals are so fond of: a gun is an inanimate object. It cannot harm someone unless someone makes it do so. Guns don't kill people and McDonalds doesn't make people fat. Deal with it.

Now let's get down to business: for decades now, violence has been glorified through the movies, video games, and music that the entertainment industry (which is run by liberals, oddly enough) puts out. Now in a sensible world, most parents would be responsible enough to keep their children from this stuff and explain to them that what they see in movies, hear in rap music, and do in video games is not how real life works. Unfortunately, this world is FAR from sensible. Not only do today's parents REFUSE to keep their children from violent content, but thanks to tablets and smartphones, they couldn't keep it from them if they wanted to. Children imitate what they see and hear, especially from their role models. So when an impressionable child hears lil Wayne rap about dealing drugs and shooting people, without anyone around to explain that that's not how real life works, they most likely will imitate this. When we let bad people be the role models of our children, they will turn into bad people themselves. If we want to cut down on gun crime without destroying individual liberty by banning guns outright, one of the things we need to do is send a strong message to the entertainment industry that glorifying violence can no longer be acceptable and explain to children that they shouldn't get their morals from those kinds of people.


Thank you, pro, for presenting your first argument.

I would first of all like to say that pro has not provided a scope or definition for this debate. I will do that for him.


"Glorification of violence": The promotion of any act of violence in...
..."Entertainment": Including television and media
"To blame": To take fault for such crimes
"Gun crimes": Crimes using guns, including murder and massacre


This debate does not need to be limited to America. In fact, it is useful to widen the scope to worldwide for the sake of comparing a country which allows guns without license with countires of different gun laws.

Now, I will refute my opponent's arguments:

1. Guns do not kill people unless humans make it do so.

Pro has suggested that guns cannot harm someone unless someone makes it do so. However, he has not tied this in with the topic and how the glorification of violence has more to do with gun crime than guns themselves. While guns cannot harm anyone unless someone pulls the trigger, if guns were not there in the first place, the risk of injuring another using guns would not exist. In this argument, pro states "guns do not kill". Guns most certainly kill if a human pulls the trigger. This argument as a whole does not metion the glorification of violence, therefore, not relating to the exact topic.

2. Children are too exposed to violence.

This statement does not come with proof that children are then influenced to turn to gun crimes. If every child was as easily influenced by crime as pro is suggesting, our world would not be safe at all. He says children will "most likely" imitate rappers singing about shooting and drug dealing. Again, our world would not be as safe as it is today if this were the case. What pro is suggesting here (by saying "most likely") is that more times than not, children will commit gun crimes when they listen to certain music. This is said without proof. The media can be a great learning and information source for children, whose minds can be molded to watch other than violence.

Now, my points:

1. Gun crime cannot exist without guns.

Saying the glorification of violence in entertainment is more to blame for gun crime than guns themselves is not true at all. Guns and people are the cause of gun crimes, and without them, gun crimes would not would not exist. Yes, people can be influenced by violence in external sources, but for gun crimes to exist, their needs to be a gun and a person.

If their was no guns, gun crime would not exist. We can all agree on that fact. However, if there was no violence shown on entertainment (yet still guns), gun crime would still exist, since people and guns are all you need to create a gun crime to occur. This alone states that guns are more to blame for gun crime than entertainment influences. Gun crimes can still exist without the glorification of violence in entertainment, however, gun crimes cannot exist without the existance of guns, proving guns are more to blame.

Pro has suggested the idea of taking away the glorification of violence in entertainment, with a view of cutting down on gun crime. While this may cut down on gun crime, this does not make it more to blame for gun crime than guns themselves. Taking away the glorification of violence in entertainment, while cutting down on gun crime, does not completely abolish the opportunity for gun crimes to occur as would happen if guns were removed. Therefore, again I state, guns are a bigger factor to the cause of gun crimes than influences from the entertainment industry.

Cutting down on violence shown in entertainment does not abolish gun crimes as a whole, unlike the effects of removing guns. The idea of cutting down on violence in entertainment is not targeting the main cause of the problem. To provide a comparison: say a country did not want people to eat anymore fast food, so they banned junk food advertising, yet left fast food restaurants standing. They are not removing what is the most to blame for the consumption of fast fodd. They are only removing something which has a minor effect and is not the main cause of the consumption of fast food. People still have the oppotunity to eat at fast food restaurants.

This idea, that "fast-food advertising is more to blame for the consumption of fast-food than fast-food bars themselves", is exactly the same as this topic, but in another context. Really, the glorification of violence only affects a small part of gun crime, when it is the guns and people which are to blame for gun crimes.

2. A comparison of countries...

In the USA, a country where approxiamately half of the households own a gun, had about 436 000 acts of violence using guns. Of these, around 11 000 of these acts of violence using guns were murder (1). About 60% of homicide was from shooting. This is in comparison to other countries, whose shooting rates are significantly lower, such as: Australia, where only about 3% of people have control over a gun (3), or England and Wales, of whom the USA's violence rates from guns are about 10 times higher than (2).

What is the difference between the countries which have considerably higher death rates from guns and other countries? No, it's not the glorification of violence in entertainment. It's the gun laws.

In countries with stricter gun laws, the death and violence rate of guns is considerably lower than countires with more "relaxed" gun laws. The vioence shown in entertainment is the same, however, throughout these countries. Therefore, the factor affecting gun crime the most is not the glorification of violence, no, but the guns themselves.

In this instance, the glorification of violence in entertainment is kept relatively the same throughout countries. However, gun murder rates are different. Why is this? Because guns are more to blame than the glorification of violence for gun crime.

In conclusion, the glorification of violence is not more to blame for gun crime than guns themselves, since guns and people are the cause of gun crimes, NOT the entertainment industry. The statistics I have provided prove this.

Thank you, over to you pro.


Debate Round No. 2


NotAfraid forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


NotAfraid forfeited this round.


Thank you for a great debate!
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by InfraFred 2 years ago
Oh, my argument is silly, is it? So you believe it is purely coincidence that the countries which allow guns have a higher death rate of shooting murders than those without?
Posted by nicraM 2 years ago
Actually, many other countries have one small difference on their TV's programming line up.

They don't show so much violence as they tend to show nudity. Yeah, weird I know. They don't seem to be ashamed.

On a side note, the concept of "more guns means more violence" is silly and can be successfully debated.

Humans, are a creature of habit. What do you think happens in a country where we shield our young kids' eyes from the human body but let them watch humans pretending to inflict harm onto said body/person.
Posted by 9Dipity 2 years ago
Unfortunately I'm not debating, but I just wanted to express a quick view on this.

It is important to remember that most other countries do not have this problem with the same amount of violence glorification in other countries across the globe.

It seems abundantly clear to me that the guns are to blame themselves, and more clearly the gun laws in the country. How is this even a question to be considered? It seems so straight forward. Americans love their guns. One could further argue that they inherently love violence regardless of the entertainment industry glorification of it and suggest that it is the other way around - the industry is inspired by the the peoples love for guns and violence of any kind.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I will award all points to Con because Ff, even though Pro made better arguments.