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

#MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment

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: 12/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 677 times Debate No: 84143
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




Gun control is a failed model. No finer evidence CAN be had, than Paris and San Bernardino.


Well since you didn't say "Acceptance Only" ill jump into the arguments right away


Common Sense Gun Control is the simple idea that criminals or the mentally ill cannot get weapons legally. My opponent states that because there was gun control in Paris and California this helped the attackers. However only 15 percent of gun shootings happen in Gun Free Zones. This makes the argument that gun free zones are dangerous for the ordinary citizen.

Over 50,000 gun shooting incidents have occurred and only 1,202 of those incidents have been for defensive purposes further invalidating Pro's point that if a gun was present less blood shed would occur.

Another point was that gun control furthers the goal of the attacker and allows him/her to kill more people. Instead of me talking about it lets see a chart which just tells the truth

If you open that link you will see that more gun shootings happen in the deep south. Places where little to no gun control like Mississippi and Alabama. Now lets look at California where gun control is present. Huh look at that. It has less gun violence than ANY of the southern states. Not surprising..... Gun Control works.

Lets move on to another point though. Pro probably believes that gun control just keeps guns out of good people's hands and lets bad people get them illegally. However this is false and I can't comprehend why people think like this. If you are not a criminal or a mentally ill person you can still get the gun. One thorough background check isn't going to do anything unless you are a criminal or a mentally ill person. In fact if anything this would deter criminals who wanted to get a gun but don't want to do it illegally.

But what about the criminals who get it illegally? According to the National bureau if guns were banned to them then only 38 percent of criminals would seek illegal means to get a gun which means that 62 percent of criminals would not seek a gun. Secondly even if the statement above didn't matter (which it does) law abiding citizens would be able to pass the background check

Back to you Pro

Debate Round No. 1


Let's start with link #1.
All you offered was a map. No context. Are these mass murders, family fights (domestic violence), drug deals, break in... Justifiable?
Without anything at least vaguely resembling context, it"s less than worthless. For all I know, all "19.3 deaths per 100,000" in Louisiana (the "worst" state) were justifiable, or worse excusable (although I think only Utah still has a firing squad).
Next; The headline reads: :Gun control report: 15 percent of mass shootings happened in "gun-free zones."
Mass shootings number have been pumped with many cases that are NOT actually mass shootings; The definition of mass shooting is "shooting to shoot." Drug related or other profit-motivated crimes are NOT part of the true definition of mass shootings.
Not that it "really" matters, though; 15% means the largest percentage happens- In gun free zones. That only include "de jure" gun free zones (schools, for example). De facto gun free zones, in other words, areas where state laws and local ordinances make the ability to carry too difficult for the average person to achieve (and I admit, San Francisco is my whipping boy here) add to this percentage; Though the banner carried the Aurora theater (or, at least, a photo meant to invoke the Aurora theater), the "15%" calculus doesn"t actually include that location- Since guns are banned by property ownership, not by law. In fact, that"s why Batman Shooter targeted that location- Bypassing two other theaters, showing the same film, since this one had the "no guns allowed" sign.
Gun "Free" Zones also get, consistently, the highest body counts. Just saying.

I would have dismissed #3 out of hand (it"s GVA), but for the side bar- It"s basically re-hashing the utterly discredited "355 this year" line. It does give raw numbers- But again, no context.

The last link was to a Bureau of Justice Statistics study. Ok, I can get with this.
"Although most crime is not committed with guns," Why, thank you...
"most gun crime is committed with handguns." And again...
"Although most available guns are not used in crime," And again...

"information about the 223 million guns available to the general public provides a context for evaluating criminal preferences for guns." Finally, "a" point. If most people drive blue cars, more blue cars will be in traffic accidents than red cars. (Here"s a hint, that"s WHY school buses are painted that God-awful yellow.)

Let's break it down.
"Although most crime is not committed with guns, most gun crime is committed with handguns."
Ya. So are most DGU's. It"s part of the reason cops only jump out of their cruisers with the shotgun if they're going to a "shots fired/active shooter" call. If they aren't they usually don't.
"Although most available guns are not used in crime, information about the 223 million guns available to the general public provides a context for evaluating criminal preferences for guns."
The context is pretty clear; Everyone prefers handguns, and with a pretty good reason. As a "general" rule, only soldiers in war zones and hunter prefer long arms of any sort.
Long arms are bulky, they can't be laid a comfortable way, and they weigh more.
And, not to beat the horse any deader than it already is, if you "need" a long arm for self-defense outside you home, you're in a neighborhood that's too violent to survive. For anyone.

"By definition, stolen guns are available to criminals." Ya... They were stolen. By a criminal. (See, for all the beatings the FBI takes, they're really not stupid- I know a few, one even said "what the regulations call a localized explosive incident and the rest of us call a pipe bomb," then went on to say "pipe bomb" the rest of the presentation because he wasn't an idiot or robot or whatever.)

"The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) stolen gun file contains over 2 million reports; 60% are reports of stolen handguns." So guns get stolen more than most other items. I find this number to be dubious, "unless it addresses stolen weapons only." Then it makes perfect sense. (Well, not "perfect," if you don"t add stolen knives, etc., THEN it makes perfect sense.)
"In 1994, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) received over 85,132 requests from law enforcement agencies for traces of guns used in crime. Over three quarters of the guns traced by the ATF in 1994 were handguns (mostly pistols), and almost a third were less than 3 years old." Ok. so 85K+ guns were recovered. Of 320m+- guns in the US. So, 1 in 3,765 of the accounted for guns were used in crimes.

"Surveys of inmates show that they prefer concealable, large caliber guns. Juvenile offenders appear to be more likely to possess guns than adults." Little surprise here. That would also reflect legal gun preferences, except in young vs. old considerations.
"Studies of the guns used in homicides show that large caliber revolvers are the most frequent type of gun used in homicides, but the number of large caliber semiautomatic guns used in murders is increasing." Other than a mild surprise that revolvers are preferred to semi-autos there"s not much here of interest.
"Little information exists about the use of assault weapons in crime. The information that does exist uses varying definitions of assault weapons that were developed before the Federal assault weapons ban was enacted."
Ah. Well, let"s use that definition then, even though it"s at best difficult to say if "assault weapons" were used.

"A New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services study of homicides in 1993 in New York City found that assault weapons were involved in 16% of the homicides studied. The definition of assault weapons used was from proposed but not enacted State legislation that was more expansive than the Federal legislation. By matching ballistics records and homicide files, the study found information on 366 firearms recovered in the homicides of 271 victims. Assault weapons were linked to the deaths of 43 victims (16% of those studied)."

That depends of the definition of assault weapons. Let"s use the fake definition conjured up during the CLINTON Administration as a pretext to ban hunting rifles, "shall we?

So there were 366 semi-automatic rifles recovered from 271 victims- "Out of how many total?
A google search later, and I have this:
"Preliminary figures released by the Police Department show that 1,995 homicides were recorded last year, 12 fewer than the police department's final figures for 1992." Since the gist of the story was that overall murder was down for the state but more concentrated in NYC, and the line specifically says "by the Police Department" with nothing before to indicate that they are referencing another city (they did, however, mention some of the boroughs), I am forced to conclude that his number reflect JUST New York City" So" There were 7 times as many murders, just in the city, as victims were firearms were recovered" And by the way, there were more guns than victims" So" At least some of them HAD to be the victim"s own gun"
So" "WERE you going somewhere with this?

But mostly" You utterly failed to address the question; Sure, People kill people with guns. And bombs. And knives. And in at least one particularly interesting incident, with an open window. (I"ve yet to get THAT story.)
And yet, strangely, you DIDN"T even try to address the concept of mandatory carry. You failed to make a case for disarmament, and pretended the alternative wasn"t there.
Please, do get to "A" case.

I dispute the assault weapons numbers.
"Assault weapons" have but ONE definition; Automatic and/or burst fire compatible detachable box magazine fed firearms. If it"s semi-automatic, it"s NOT an "assault" anything. This definition is based on the first assault rifle, the STg-44 (with accommodation for changes in technology on calibers that didn"t exist back then). The use of this term as a terror tactic is truly reprehensible. (I am checking myself here, it should NOT be allowed. Period.)



Your rebuttal of my chart showing the gun violence is not adequate enough. Louisiana, no matter what you say, has the worst gun control and has the MOST deaths of all the southern states. And California, a state with a lot of gun control, has one of the least gun related deaths in America. This shows also disproves your statement that more people would die because criminals would get guns because the facts show other wise.

Guns in the household also increase the likely hood of suicide.

"Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. 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."

Enacting common sense gun control would decrease the homicide rate by firearms

Currently out of the 12796 murders in the US 88555 of them were gun related. If you take away the guns most criminals wont go for a gun like I pointed out above (over 62 percent wouldn't get a gun illegally) or they will use a knife which cant effectively murder people or MASS amount of people like guns can

Also I don't understand your question? I didn't "utterly fail to address the question". Guns are RARELY used in self defense according the charts I have. Only about 1000 gun incidents are defense. The VAST majority are homicides, accidents and suicides ALL decreasing if you enact common sense gun control

In the end I have an argument and you don't. I don't have an extremist position but you do. I didn't say remove ALL guns. I said enact a law that restricts guns from criminals and the mentally ill, however it would still be available to citizens who could pass the background check. You believe there should be no gun control and let countless more die.

Vote CON!!!

Debate Round No. 2


You've again only presented "body count" numbers, without context or purpose. I can just as easily present "body count" data to say 1,694 were killed with knives in 2"11 ( Do we now ban KNIVES?

The argument of "reasonable restrictions" has historically proven to be an untruthful statement. These "reasonable" restrictions, with the exception of the 1986 ban, have either been ineffectual (the 1934 and 1969 bans) or as a "back door" attempt at larger bans.
Ergo, there really IS only one way forward; Either we repeal the Second Amendment outright, as advocated by certain parties, OR we raise the protections by making said carry mandatory, with certain pointed exceptions; If a judge is willing to place their name, reputation, license to practice law, and possibly their freedom on the line to say "NO! You should NOT be allowed to keep and bear arms!", then that will suffice.
To say "guns kill" is to say that an inanimate object CHOOSES to act of its own volition; Now, if you were to argue "ROBOTS KILL!" that might make sense; A robot CAN in fact be programmed to kill, "without human control." (That it hasn't be done "yet" to my knowledge notwithstanding, in some form, the technology COULD exist, and it might already.)
That guns "are" used to kill is irrelevant; Knives, drugs, bombs, poisons of all sorts, and, in one particularly interesting case, an open window have all been used as "murder weapons."
Although this is a re-statement of an earlier point, it can not be stated enough; Guns do not kill. Knives do not kill. Open windows do not kill, either. People (or maybe someday well-programmed robots) kill.

I hate to boil this down to a trite slogan, but gun control really DOES kill. Mandatory Carry will save lives.
All lives? NO. Situations like San Bernardino or Paris, the first few victims will probably die. At very least, they will be injured. But the ASSURANCE, to those of reasonable clear mind, that there will almost definitely be SOMEONE who is also armed in response will give all but the MOST recalcitrant, perhaps even suicidal (such as the case of Vincente MONTANO), a moment of REAL pause.


Firstly I gave PERFECT context

Please look at this chart, it tell you the REASON why people died of guns

Only about a thousand were for defense. Just read the chart.

However I feel like we are getting off topic. The point of the debate was Repeal the Second Amendment or Have Mandatory Carry. I believe that the second amendment shouldn't be repealed! It should be followed!

Lets look at the Second Amendment:

"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."

Lets break it down. "A well regulated Militia". In order to own a gun you need to be in a militia. If you didn't need to be in a militia why would that be added? Not only that but it says WELL REGULATED. Which means the government can regulate the gun flow. Even Antonio Scalia, one of the most conservative judges, said we can regulate guns.

We also have to look at the context of why this amendment was added....

It was for militias and slave patrols------------->

Yes the purpose of the second amendment was about not letting slaves reach the border of Virginia and have a militias!

Mandatory Carry! Wow! If everyone was ordered to carry a gun it wouldn't be a freedom now would it? A gun present in a situation that would normally be non-lethal almost always leads to death

"The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage..." -David Hemenway (Harvard's director of Injury Control Research)

Debate Round No. 3


I have seen your chart; I can give an equally valid chart showing (I hope you're sitting down here) TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION cases of self defense.
Ya, that's the claim. I give to 250 million number as much veracity as I do the "only about a thousand" claims. Even combining "all" cases, the DGU numbers can not reasonably exceed 2.5 million- That's assuming we include cases where X thought about robing/murdering/etc. Y, only to discover that Y had a gun, and abandoning the idea, before even committing to same.
The number also can not reasonably be LESS than 1 million- Studies tell us for every one crime committed, 10 are conceived and abandoned BEFORE the commitment stage.

Your understanding of the "militias" terminology in the Second Amendment has at least logical flaws (though I can't go so far as to call them logical fallacies);
1. Until the early 20th century (sometime between the World Wars), the militia quite literally meant "all able bodied males 16 to 65."
2. The militias purpose was local service; Fire, law enforcement (although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it's the posse comitatus), and defense of the town. (In the western towns, the local sheriff was as powerful as they were because they were essentially the local militry general.) The purpose to enshrining the militias per se was the knowledge that the State could not provide protection to everyone at all times- They needed the means to protect themselves.
3. On paper, at least, the militias of old are now the National Guards. (Each state still has a militia, and Sheriffs and Mayors can in fact call up the militia during natural disasters; It's usually the Chief of Police and Fire Chiefs who start the ball rolling, as has happened in living memory.)

But, you want to hide behind the word "militia"? Very well. Report to the National Guard recruiter.
Now, ME, I've already reported. (Pre-9/11, at that.)
Then 2, 4, 6 years later, you get out- Then what? You abandon your right to self defense?
That is illogical, at best, and ignores a fundamental truth (an outright maxim); Criminals will get guns, no matter what the law says. (:If you outlaw guns, outlaws will have guns.")
Even in countries where guns are banned, "criminals still get guns." Paris, Britain, Australia, Sweden. Indeed, in the Sweden case, no better target profile COULD have been developed; An island (no escape possible, and rescue impaired by restrictions on access that made escape impossible), where guns had already "been" banned by owner's privilege. (Only the Aurora shooting makes a better example, as it was not only a contained environment but a highly restricted exit, and no evasion possible for the most part; it really IS a miracle anyone survived at all.)

As to SCALIA, he also (loosely speaking) opined that felons may possess guns unless state explicitly prohibits it and that the right to gun ownership is individual, not collective (
Perhaps you were thinking of Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul STEVENS, who opined in "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution" a 5-word revision to the Second Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms - when serving in the Militia - shall not be infringed."

You bring up the context of the Second Amendment, but you don't know it:
The context, the world as it existed in the 1760's, "80's, and "90's, was that the State (both the plural and singular, the 13 and federal) -COULD NOT- have policemen, soldiers, or even private security guards ("night watchmen" as they were then known) standing in every village, let alone outside every home. Even today, that would be a practicable impossibility.
And yet, attacks on homes DID happen. Indian and "Wildman" raids (whites who'd gone west, living like Indians, and usually on the run from some other matter that they'd rather not deal with) were still quite common.
The people needed the means to protect THEMSELVES.
The threat of Indian attacks has virtually disappeared (and Hollywood notwithstanding, wasn't the real threat then in any case), but the modern "wildmen" still does; Common criminals, whether they live in the "concrete jungle" or back woods, are still a very real threat.

Mandatory Carry is meant to return to this, with a logical address of modern technology; The best militry analogy is the Phalanx; Overlapping protection where you can't actually defend yourself but you can depend upon the man (or other, now) next to you to provide protection.
H, BTW- You can cite as many youtube videos as you want, but that's neither evidence, nor factually correct. And slaves were banned the possession of arms, unless directed so, in writing, by their master.
Under the Code Noir, any white man who saw a slave or suspected slave in possession of arms (specifically firearms) was required to arrest said slave, deliver him to a judge, and, if necessary, to shoot and kill them.

You say, "If everyone was ordered to carry a gun it wouldn't be a freedom now would it?"
The State has ALWAYS had the power to force the people to buy things they don't necessarily want or need; Car insurance, for example. (This doctrine is enshrined in the Constitution, and I confess I don't remember where, but it is NOT one of the amendments. It's in the original text.)

You argue that bring a gun to a non-lethal encounter "almost" always turns the situation lethal. Firstly, there's very little evidence of this (maybe 1% off all such cases), and secondly, if you're a law abiding citizen (ie, the kind that ARE allowed to keep and bear), then historically the presentation of a gun ends the encounter- The criminal runs for their life, because they KNOW if they get hit, they're going to prison. (Hospitals are REQUIRED to report suspected violence cases.)

"The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage..."
I can't dispute that. "MOST" people don't shoot without some anger.
Those that do, end up in places where they're usually not allowed to leave, and not able to be tried for their actions.
BTW- "Many." Not even "most" and far from "all." Noteworthy.


Firstly we have to understand that more guns in an environment creates more of a chance for suicide.

Now you might say that "Well he/she will just use a knife" However this statement is warped. While a victim might use a knife their probability of killing themselves is lower than a gun.

A gunshot to the head has a 99 percent probability to kill the victim (The other 1 percent is accidental lobotomy)

While a knife cut to the neck has only a 70 percent chance of killing the victim ( The other 30 percent is due to ignorance of where to cut the neck)

Also Pro seems to say IM taking the 2nd amendment out of context! It is actually quite the opposite. All gun-lovers just focus on "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" while they completely miss "a well regulated militia". The founding fathers, if they knew the destruction of modern guns, would most likely ban them. What guns did they use back then?

They used swords, bayonets and muskets. The average reloading time for a musket was 20 seconds. Which means AT BEST you could kill one man every 20 seconds ( Collateral damage was rare due to bullets being lodged in target's body due to its small round shape).

Not only this but the founding fathers even thought that regulated MUSKETS was a good idea. Imagine their shock they would have where people can carry guns that can have extended magazines.

You also failed to rebut the fact of why the second amendment was introduced

And you failed to rebut the fact that guns make a encounter deadly

Vote CON!

Debate Round No. 4


Warning: Truncations due to character count.
Reformist argues that "more guns means more suicides." Those determined to end their lives- WILL. Most use drugs. (Tragic fact, a habitual drug abuser is five times more likely to commit suicide... A debate for a later day.)
I'm not sure if he's being deliberately obstructive or honestly ignorant, but his understanding of the militias of virtually all of history is utterly lacking; Until "around" the 1920's, all males 16-65 were required to report for militia training once per month; Only a couple of hours were spent on marching, and none on shooting (you were expected to spend that time on your own).
IN FACT, the militia's inability to face REAL soldiers was so well known that at the Battle Of Cowpens it was used as the LYNCHPIN of the American plan; Place the militia before the British, then they break. The Redcoats would chase them down to finish them off, running STRAIGHT into a wall of von STEUBEN-trained Americans to be annihilated ( It. Worked.
In fact, "training" for the militias generally was- A drunken party. (I hate to say it like that, but it's true, "Colonial Chesapeake: New Perspectives." MEYERS, Debra and PERREAULT, Melanie, P 206.)
Reformist argues that the guns "of today" did not exist back then, citing a questionably reliable source.
It articulates the 4 major models of long arms used through the course of the Revolution;
The Pennsylvanian Backwoodsmen held the RIFLED musket Pennsylvania Rifle- Meaning commoners had SUPERIOR weapons than the infantry. (Imagine that, if the US Army fielded the AR-15, and every home had an M-16!)
But there's SO much more...
The Girandoni ( was an air rifle (or so it is listed), but WAS in fact capable of killing a man at 100 yards (300 feet), and fed by a 20-ball gravity fed magazine- In short, a semi-automatic rifle in the black powder era.
Why wasn't it adopted? It cost FAR too much for an average man to purchase (Thomas JEFFERSON had one). To equip even a small force (20) with these may have been cost-effective, but still cost prohibitive.
There are others, as well- Leonard da VINCI'S "Ribauldequin" and other "volley guns" is but one example I happen to like, because da VINCI died before WASHINGTON'S parents were born. The Nock Gun (, while it came along after the Revolution per say, was based on earlier concepts (including the Castle Gun).
The theory that the Revolution, having been fought by "smoothbore muskets" was thoroughly disproven over a decade ago... Had the AR-15 existed in WASHINGTON'S time, he would have converted them to M-16's before the march on Trenton. The earlier acts regulating firearms, in which a gun registry came into use for a gun BAN, was passed by a deeply Tory governor, who was, kindly put, removed from New York in the wake of Yorktown.

"The world as it existed in the 1700's, was that the State -COULD NOT- have policemen, soldiers, or even private security guards standing in every village, let alone outside every home. Even today, that would be a practicable impossibility. And yet, attacks on homes DID happen. The people needed the means to protect THEMSELVES. The threat of common criminals, whether they live in the "concrete jungle" or back woods, is still a very real threat."
I do hope the VOTERS at least will read it...

I could go on and on about confrontations ended by a single gun, from Clackamas Town Center to Pearl High School and beyond, but such a list could take 20 minutes or more just to sort, even assuming I'd already weeded out the "non-examples" (off-duty police officers and on-duty security guards).

From the LA Times' list of the 46 most deadly shootings (, Deadliest U.S. mass shootings, 1984-2015 [updated 02 Dec. 2015, 12:39]), the top 5 were:
Blacksburg, VA: 16 April 2007; 32 killed, 17 injured (Virginia Tech; Gun Free Zone).
Newtown, CN: 14 Dec. 2012; 27 killed, 1 injured (Sandy Hook Elementary School; Gun Free Zone).
San Ysidro, CA: 18 July 1984; 21 killed, 19 wounded (public place).
Killeen, TX: 16 Oct. 1991; 22 killed, 20 wounded (Luby's Cafeteria; Gun Free Zone).
San Bernardino, CA: 02 Dec. 2015; 17 dead, 21 wounded (Inland Regional Center; Gun Free Zone).

4 of the 5 were gun free zones. The fifth, 18 July 1984 in San Ysidro, CA (21 killed, 19 wounded), was at a McDonalds. If you've ever been in a McDonalds, you know it's easy to get in- Hard to get out in a hurry. (McDonalds was asked about their gun policy; they stated they abide federal, state, and local law.) Under TX law at the time, the Luby's Shooting occurred in a Gun Free Zone (as a public accommodation, firearms were prohibited).

9 of the 46 (almost 20%) occurred in CA, with by far the most incidents, the highest average body count, and the third worst single incident by body count. (CA has instituted such high standards for CCW issuance that 90% of the people can't achieve it, and has outlawed open carry.)

It's quite clear that Reformist did NOT review the link I supplied originally (see end and first post), or he'd see that his "concerns" about public safety were already addressed. I invite the rest of you to do so.

I found this interesting as well:
"Currently out of the 12796 murders in the US 88555 of them were gun related."
88,555 is greater than 12,796- I have to wonder where this came from.

Now, let's do some REAL MATH!

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."" ( This section was taken from
There are "about" 318 million people in the US, and several sources say there is "more than 1 gun per average American." Let's round this off the 320 million guns.
320,000,000/500,000=640; One in 640 of all guns were used in self-defense- Even is no one was shot.
320,000,000/24,700=12,956. This is 1991, the worst year on record for murder, when 24,700 "total" murders occurred. Let us assume all of those were guns; 1 in 12,956 guns were used in a murder. I "could" pump up these numbers, by adding in all crimes (though it doesn't make "much" sense to add "property damage" to this, does it?).
And isn't 500,000 something like 20 times 24,700?
The claim that "knives can't effectively be used from mass murder" has been disproven already ( Of the FBI's 12,664 total murders for 2011, 6,220+323+356+1,684=2007 using "all gun type" AND "Other guns or type not stated" (meaning the murder weapon was not identified, and thus included under guns). "Knives or cutting instruments" totaled 1,694, for "a little more" than three quarters. (

Taking guns from "anyone" doesn't solve the problem; Criminals get them anyways. My favorite examples are Leonid "Tarzan" FAINBERG (, 1996's Operation Dragon Fire (, and Leland YEE (a sitting member of the California [oh my!] State Senate, who advocated for the ban on open carry and homebuild guns, was busted for gun running.)
Those that speak of "reasonable restrictions" speak of a back-door ban; As they can't ban guns outright, they pass "reasonable" restrictions, then add to them as often as practicable; CA called a permanent ban on semi-automatic detachable box magazines a "reasonable" restriction. Look how well that worked in San Bernardino.
What ARE reasonable restrictions? The last (and, to date, ONLY reasonable restriction law) passed was in 1998, when Ronald REAGAN signed into law the Assault Weapons And Machineguns Ban. (Yes, REAGAN.) I'm not even sure WHERE this claim that I believe in "no" restrictions at all comes from- There are at least three CATEGORIES of exemptions to mandatory carry.
In closing;
Gun control laws have NEVER disarmed criminals. They disarm law-abiding citizens. Even the most "well meant" restrictions inevitably draw in far more than the described intent. While putting a gun in EVERY hand is both impracticable (for those fundamentally unable to use them) and in some cases contrary to the desired good (specifically, convicted felons and others with proven violent tendencies), there remains the 99% who ARE competent to assist in their own defense at trial (the general threshold for the insane or, and I hate to use this word, retarded) and ARE physically able to do so (obviously, asking a quadriplegic to carry a gun, or fire extinguisher, is not even funny) who would be included.
I invite the judges to review the REAL proposal, rather than a contrived version:


I would like to firstly thank my opponent for a good debate


I already displayed the fact that suicides using knives are actually significantly lower. Almost 30 percent from the 99 percent kill probability of using a gun. You saying that I'm wrong without any sources has no impact so my point still stands. Also he lists no sources of a drug user being more likely to kill themselves and even if he did this debate isn't about drugs. Again no impact.

Pro's rebuttal of my militia argument is misleading at best and incoherent at worst. My point was that in order to use guns you have to join a militia and the guns must be regulated. The history of militias don't really have an impact on what I said and I don't even understand why Pro brought this up. It rebuts nothing of my statement that you have a gun only when inside a militia.

Also Pro seems to bring up the point about self defense. Again only 1250 cases of gun violence out of the countless gun incidents are for self defense.

Pro also brings up the deaths in "gun free" zones. Okay so according to him 144 people have died in recent times because of gun free zones. I used the ones he listed which date back to 1984. So lets check out all the gun deaths for just this year

33,804 firearm related deaths in 2015 (

I think I made your point have no impact at all

And finally gun control.

Its laughable that you think common sense gun control keeps guns out of law abiding citizens. If they cant pass the background check then they weren't really law abiding were they? I think, again, its laughable if you think someone with a mental or criminal background is a "Good person".

That's it! Sorry couldn't respond quicker, was having family over for Christmas.

Also I didn't know we had judges?

Oh well VOTE CON!

Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jay_SKIDMORE 10 months ago
Why am I not able to vote? >:(
Posted by Jay_SKIDMORE 10 months ago
Gun bans will- And ALL "reasonable" restrictions lead to confiscations, unless stopped right away.
Don't believe me? Google "first gun ban in US."
And 33,804? REALLY?!
Posted by Reformist 10 months ago
It wont stop all criminals but it also wont affect law abiding citizens
Posted by Jay_SKIDMORE 10 months ago
Full Version:
And I didn't even get into the Constitutional issues yet. (I really need to do that.)
Posted by Jay_SKIDMORE 10 months ago
I really had to cut that one down; It was more than TWICE the allowed character count.
Posted by Jay_SKIDMORE 10 months ago
"You mean like how you like think gun control will stop criminals from getting guns?
Posted by Reformist 10 months ago
But you think that passing an anti abortion law will prevent abortion?

Posted by ProveWhatYouSay 10 months ago
Thank you Mr Skidmore.
Posted by Jay_SKIDMORE 10 months ago
His point is, there are MANY forms of murder, torture, mayhem, even websites dedicated to exploring these (Mr Ogre was one, dunno if it's still around), yet to argue for gun control is to argue for the symptom, not the disease; To treat the cough, not the raging infection that caused the cough.
A DOCTOR would tell you sometimes you have to treat the symptoms AS you treat the disease, but you still have to treat the disease.
I myself had meningitis, with a temperature of 104". Had the doctor "ONLY" packed me in a ice water bath, I'd be DEAD now.
And tragically, treating the "DISEASE" of murder is not possible; From drug related to rage to "religiously motivated" (don't read anything into that, there's PLENTY of blame to go around, just in modern "history") to people who's minds "don't work right," you can never make murder "disappear" just be passing a law making it so.
Posted by Reformist 10 months ago
List them out at points please.

It was a rant and i couldnt really find any content
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: