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

More Gun Laws?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 56117
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Guns are horrible, violent, and unpopular things that can easily get out of control. So, why aren't American politicians imposing more control on guns? To get this debate started, I will share some shocking, but true facts about guns.

On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns everyday.

On average, 51 Americans kill themselves with guns and 45 Americans are shot and killed on accident, every day.

The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

Medical treatment, criminal justice proceedings, new security precautions, and reductions in quality of life are estimated to cost U.S. citizens $100 billion annually.

Isn't that scary?! Well...


Thanks for the debate.
"On average 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day"
This also includes criminals getting shot by cops and civilians (FBI uniform crime report)
"On average, 51 Americans kill them selves with a gun every day and 45 are shot in an accident"
Gun control can not stop suicide. If someone really wants to kill them self they will do so, gun or no gun. We can reduce gun accidents by requiring anyone who is purchasing a firearm to take a gun safety course. It's not lack of gun control that got the person killed, it's lack of responsibility. People should know not to play with guns, not to leave loaded guns laying around where a child may pick it up and accidentally get shot, and people should know how to use a gun before buying one.
"U.S firearm homicide rate is 22 times the rate..."
True, but the U.S has less crime and homicides over all compared to many of those countries. In the U.K when they banned hand guns in 1997 the violent crime rate increased by 70% and the homicide rate increased by 50% (U.K home office stats) in the U.K there are 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 people while in the U.S there are 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people. In the U.K you are 133% more likely to be raped than in the U.S.
"A firearm at home..."
This can be solved by making people less stupid and more responsible gun owners. It's not the guns fault that the person got shot, it's the irresponsible father who left a loaded gun lying about where his kid could easily pick it up, the teen who knows playing with guns is dangerous but wanted to be cool in front of his friends and decided to play around with it ect.
"Criminal justice proceedings and medical treatment..."
Crime can not be stopped by gun control. If a criminal wants a gun he"ll get one no matter what. Criminals don't care about the law and they won't obey anyone's gun laws. For example meth is illegal in America but criminals still get it and sell it to addicts. If guns of any type are banned than we"ll have a gun cartel along with the drug cartel, who will kill and hurt innocent people in order to get those illegal weapons to criminals. When those criminals use their illegal guns to hurt law abiding citizens the law abiding citizens won't have a way to defend them self because they won't have a gun. What Gun bans do is disarm law abiding citizens who actually follow the rules, while criminals who don't follow the rules will get the guns anyway.
Is also like to share these facts with you.
This is the official FBI web site where murder, violent crime, burglary and other offenses are listed by rate an number. Between 1992 and 2011 when gun ownership in the U.S expanded crime rates have actually gone down as well as rape; murderer and many other things. Guns have made us safer in the last 20 years.
Guns save
This website has over 1000 stories about how guns have saved the lives of people in the U.S. This includes self defense from animals, burglars and home invaders, rapists and even a couple mass shooting preventions.
Keep in mind that guns are used in America 2 million times a year for self defense (FBI uniform crime report)
I would also like to point out that in certain american cities there is tough gun control. However those cities have higher crime rates than the American cities that have less gun control. Chicago is the crime capital of the U.S. There are more homicides, rapes and other crimes in Chicago than any other american city even though Chicago has very strict gun control laws. D.C is a nother American city with strict gun control laws and very high crime rates. Dallas is a city with little gun control and lower crime rates. It seems that the more gun control the more crime.
Thanks for the debate :).
Debate Round No. 1


First of all I am happy to debate with you over this interesting topic so, thank you for the debate! Those are some good points, but background checks would prevent irresponsible fathers from even having guns in their homes. Background checks, you are partially right, would not completely prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, but it would decrease the access of guns to criminals. Even little steps can solve the big problems sometimes, right! Think about this, since guns are legal, criminals can access guns at a regular price in regular fashion. If guns were illegal, criminals would have to pay a lot more for them and would have to buy them in more secrecy. This makes it a lot more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. Also, do you agree with me that it is a lot easier to murder someone with a gun than with a knife, poison, etc.

About 16,272 murders were committed in the U.S. During 2008. Of all of these, 67% (10,886) were committed with firearms.

A survey among more than 18,000 prison inmates found that 30% of state offenders and 35% of federal offenders carried a firearm while committing the crime.

In the crime filled city of Chicago, in 2007, about 80% of murders were committed with just handguns, not just guns in general.

In the constitution it clearly states, "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." The constitution, which is what many pro-gun advocates use as an argument, clearly says that guns are needed for a militia. More than 200 years after that document was written, there are no militias and people still have the right to own guns. Why?!

In California, where there are the most gun laws out of any state, the murder rate is 6.0 people per 100,000. In Alaska, where there are almost no gun laws, the murder rate is 8.6 people per 100,000.

Thanks again for the debate!


Thanks buddy!
I believe that background checks should be very very tough. When giving someone a weapon that can be used to kill many people there should be no stone left un turned. However making guns illegal will only prevent law abiding citizens from getting guns. Criminals who don't care about laws will still get them even if it does take more time and even if it does cost more. When those criminals try to attack, rape and kill law abiding citizens with their illegal weapons the law abiding citizens won't have a way to defend them selves because they won't have a gun. If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. Guns should be a available to mentally stable, responsible, law abiding citizens. If there are more law abiding citizens with conceal carry permits, open carry permits and guns at home less criminals will try to attack them. If a criminal fears that their victim might be armed or have a gun in their home likely the criminal won't try and rob them or if they do they'll be shot (hopefully not killed), scared off or captured by their would be victim. What would be best is a country where mentally stable, responsible, law abiding people who want to own guns have guns in their homes and CCPs (conceal carry permits) or OCPs (open carry permits) for when they are out in public. At the same time criminals should not have guns but if they do and they attacks someone with their gun hopefully their victim will have a gun to defend them self.
I have trouble accepting that most killers get their guns legally and I think or would be better if we had a background check system that could prevent that but if someone really wants to kill someone than they will get a gun no matter what. They probably don't have morals considering that they're trying to kill someone and they don't care about the law because killing someone is illegal. If they are willing to kill, rape and steal they likely are wiling to buy and illegal gun (no regard for the law and no morals).
Just Ten myths about gun control
A 1982 survey found that most male inmates had been scared off, captured or wounded by their victim with a gun.
34% were scared off, wounded or captured by a victim with a gun
40% did not commit a crime beside they feared that their victim might have a gun
69% personally knew other criminals who had been scared off, captured or wounded by a victim with a gun.
Remember guns are used millions of times a year to prevent crimes.
The second amendment
The second amendment was put in to our constitution to protect the citizens of America from tyrannical government, dictatorships and any other kind of oppressive government. Will we have to defend our selves from an oppressive government tomorrow? No. In ten years?. Probably not?. In 50 or 100 years? Maybe. If we do ever have to defend our selves from a oppressive government we should have what ever weapons we need to do so. Also keep in mind that dictators often strip the people of their guns before they began their dictatorship. This has happened in Germany, Korea and the Soviet Union (now Russia, Ukraine and a bunch of other countries) my grandmother is a Crimean Tatar who was born (year 1928) and raised in the Crimea (part of Ukraine). She and her family were taken in carts to a concentration camp in Germany. They lived in a cave and experienced WW2 as well as Stalins brutal dictatorship until most of them moved to the U.S. When Stalin became dictator he removed all guns from the people. Because of their inability to defend them selves they endured many years of misery, oppression and hardship. In the Philippines when Ferdinand Marco be me dictator the first thing he did was give the people two weeks to turn all their guns or it was the death penalty. If we ever have to go through something like that we would need as many weapons possible.
Your point about Cali is good but I would like to point out the horrible massacre that took place recently I'm Santa Barbra where Elliot Rodger stabbed three men to death than shot three more people to death. Also the horrible killings in Colorado took place in a gun free movie theater. There were 7 movie theaters with in 20 minutes from the killers house that were showing bat man that night and he chose to go to the one movie theater that banned guns. He didn't choose the theater with the biggest screen, he didn't choose the theater with the largest room and he didn't choose the theater that was closest to his house. He chose the theater that didn't allow guns, most likely because he knew that no one in there could defend them selves from him. If someone with a CCP had been in there they would have stopped him. Most of these mass killings have taken place in gun free zones. Perhaps if we had more people with CCPs or OCPs we would have less mass killings.
Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, I believe that I have the majority of Americans on my side in this issue. According to recent Gallup polls, 85% of Americans believe that background checks would prevent crime and deaths. The definition of background check is "Reviewing parties confidential and public information to investigate their history." The statistics show that background checks actually do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who aren't supposed to have them. Nearly 1.8 million firearm applications for transfers or permits were denied between 1998 and 2008 and 153,000 people in 2010 alone. Background checks can prevent people with past criminal records and people with mental illness.
There are states that sell guns to children that are eight. There are magazines that make pink guns specifically made for little girls. Is this responsible?! Is this right?!
About how guns are used to prevent crime, also remember that guns are also used millions of times a year to commit crimes.
The deadliest shooting in U.S. History occurred at Virginia Tech University. 23 year year student Seung-Hui Cho entered two classrooms and killed 32 people with a gun (33 if you include the fact he shot himself too) and injured 17.
On December 14th, 2012, Adam Lanza shot his mother at their home. Then he entered Sandy Hook Elementary School. He shot and killed 27 people and injured 2. He then shot himself.
On October 16th, 1991, George Hennard crashed his pickup truck through the wall of a diner in Killeen, Texas and opened fire upon diners. He shot and killed 23 people and injured 20.
Now these are just 3 examples of the many that occur.
From Sandy Hook to six months after, there were about forty mass shootings alone.
As this interesting debate comes to a close, I thank my opponent and wish you the best of luck in future debates.
Just remember how many lives we would save with more gun control.


I'm deffidentally in favor of strict background checks. 90% of Americans would like a universal background check and it makes sense.
Remember that criminals will get guns no matter what. If they're wiling to kill, rape and steal that they're wiling go to get an ilegal gun. In most cities in America where many people have CCPs or OCPs there is less crime. A criminal is less wiling to attack someone who has a gun and if he does gun or no gun he'll likley be scared off by his victim if the victim have a gun.
I don't have a problem with selling guns to a child if the gun stays in a range until the child reaches a certain age. If they take it home with limited training than that's one thing but if they only use it with adult supervision in a professional setting that's completely ok.
There's no doubt that background checks would prevent mass killings. My cousin goes to Virginia tech and I'm very saddened of the horrors that occurred there. If the killer hadn't had a gun than he still would have found a way to kill people using a bomb or something else or he would have gotten the gun illegally. If he's wiling to kill 32 people than he's wiling to get a gun illegally. He obviously didn't care about obeying the law because he's broken the law of killing people (and he killed himself afterwords so he doesn't care about the punishment) and he certainly doesn't care about the fact that it's morally wrong to get an illegal gun considering that he killed people. He did the most immoral thing at Virginia tech and he probably wouldn't care about buying something illegal. If someone is wiling to kill their mom than 20 kids and than 6 educators they are wiling to get an illegal gun. Someone like that belongs on a mental hospital. Remember he had garbage bags on his windows and never left his room. His mother should have noticed this was abnormal and gotten the guns out of the house.
Remember gun control (banning of guns) only effects law abiding citizens. Criminals who are wiling to rape, steal and kill don't care about the laws and won't obey them. The best way to stop crime is to keep guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and out of the hands of criminals.
Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.