The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

Recent and past shootings are not a gun control problem but a problem of society and the individuals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 7 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,240 times Debate No: 28269
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (7)




In light of the recent shootings in Oregon and Connecticut, the media and anti-second amendment proponents have tended to spin these tragedies in a manor that reflects the issue of gun control in the United States. This debate is to determine if gun control is the main problem and should be highlighted or if the powers that be are ignoring other more important issues to propel their anit-gun campaigns.

I will be taking the side stating there are much bigger issues involved in this and that gun control is not the problem here and should not be so fixated on by the media and government.

I am making this 5 rounds so that the first round can be an introduction and accepting the debate. Round 2 will start the arguments with no set format of rebuttals for 2/3/4. Round 5 will be closing statements of your own arguments and positions and any final data.


Hello! Nice to see you on this site.

I am pretty interested in this topic and I gladly challenge agasint you.

But I just want to set one rule that you, being the Pro need to show that society and individual is the "bigger" cause while I need to show that gun control problem is the bigger problem since it is agreeable that both contribute. So let us each show why one is the bigger problem.

In this round, I will bascially set these terms and rules. At Round 2, I will present my first argument. Round 3, I will offer rebuttal to Pro's case and introduce another case of mine. At Round 4, I will offer some clash analysis and at Round 5, I will summarize the debate.

Let us begin. If you have any objection, please leave a comment so we can start on Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1


The recent shooting in CT is a tragedy. I will not say anything against that, thoughts and prayers to the victims and families.

The shooting that took place in CT, OR, CO, and others, people have claimed are a tragic trend of violence and many claim it is due to low gun control laws. As a proponent of gun ownership rights, I am often involved in this argument. While I will be using many of my facts and figures that I know already, I'm hoping that in this debate more will come out on both sides allowing for a good increase in knowledge of both parties.

I do have to say that the CT shooting is the most tragic even more so than VA Tech (32 dead) and Columbine (13 dead), due to the children being the target. But lets evaluate why this happened.

In a NY Times interview, a local resident stated that Adam Lanza had difficulties in the community, was pulled out of school and turned to home-schooling. While we don't know much about his home life, this does lead to speculations as to him having social mental disorders. In one NY Time article ( he is described as having a development disorder that led to him not socializing well. Beyond that, he was in a household that went through a divorce in 2008 when he was 17 years old, and his father had remarried. All things that can cause mental trauma for a young adult. We don't know if he was bullied in school, or treated right at home, it's unknown. But he clearly had issues with his mother as she was the first victim.

Take the Aurora shooting for example, sources claim he had severe social and mental issues ( as well as the detailed plans of how he was going to kill people planned out ( That's something that takes a unique person to do, someone with intention to kill, regardless of methods.

In both of these cases, guns were used, however, in both of these cases the suspect had deep personal issues that may be the result of upbringing, societal pressures or constraints, or actual disorders. However, these issues also are extremely hard to diagnose, both due to people being unwilling to cooperate and seek help, or inability due to financial constraints. The average cost of a psychiatrist visit is around $120 not including the drugs that you get prescribed, and a psychologist session can range $180-300. That's a lot of money, especially for those that are in college, or out of work, or simply don't think they have a problem and don't want to pay. And many health insurance policies do not cover this. So diagnosing a problem becomes a real problem.

Last issue, is childhood and upbringing, especially our school systems. In 09-10 school year, the CDC ( reported that 12% (7.8mil) of kids reported being in a physical fight at school, 5.9% (3.835mil) skipped one or more days due to feeling unsafe, and finally 20.1% (13.065mil) said they were victims of at school bullying and 16.2% (10.53mil) said electronic bullying. That's a lot of kids that are having traumatic events at school. If you combine all those numbers that's 35.23 Million kids, now, that's gotta assume there are a lot of kids getting double hits in this survey as well, thus increasing the trauma. On top of that 1.2 Million drop out annually, 44% of which are now jobless ( and unable to support themselves or whatever situation they are in. That trauma has to have some kind of negative effect on a developing mind.

All that being said, now lets examine other figures. Gun ownership is climbing and in a high point since 1996, with 47% of Americans stating that they are gun owning households. Now, the census data I have is from 2010, and therefore I will use that data and percentage of 45% gun households (, but just bear in mind that the number has increased. This equates, with the 2010 45% to 47-53 Million Households. The same year, adults owning guns was around 30-34% equating to 70-80million. Now, lets translate that to firearm related homocides in the same year, 8775 ( That equates to 0.012% of gun owners being involved in these shootings.

Now, lets look at a few other statistics, a few of these are dated but they are still relevant, it is estimated (exact numbers are hard to determine based on how it is used) that over 100K times a year guns are used as a means of self-defense ( In '99, DC had a murder rate of 56.9:100K and they've had a ban on guns since 1976, Arlington, VA allows guns, across the river, had a murder rate of 1.6:100K. Britian, which people use as the poster child of gun control, has a "hot burglary" rate of 59% (meaning residents are home at the time), the US has a rate of 13%, combine that with the fact that many felons report they avoid houses where they know or suspect the victim is armed (

All these statistics, and I have many more, go to show that guns do not cause crime to happen. The data regarding ownership and crime rate shows that 99.9% of gun owners are law-abiding citizens that have done absolutely nothing wrong with their firearms. That is an overwhelming majority and good cause to say that guns are not causing the problems here.

Lets retract to April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City. Two men conspired to and accomplished another tragic event, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. 168 dead, including 19 children, and 680 injured. They built this bomb with fertilizer and gas and a few other components. The methods for building these bombs is not hard to find instructions for, and the components are simple to get. Yes, they would suspect something now if you walk into a store and buy 40 bags of fertilizer, but consider James Holmes, planning this for months, even suspected of booby trapping his own house. He had guns, yes, but what if he walked in with a small back pack with a pipe bomb or parked outside with a bomb like the one in 1995. What if the guy in CT drove a van into the front door of the school with the same thing? 9/11, no shots were fired and thousands died. Guns are not the problem here, pardon my graphic description but someone could walk through a school with a crowbar, or an axe, or a machete and do quite a bit of damage. These people have something wrong in their heads, the guns don't make them do this, it's their own problems and they would do it with or without guns. If someone wants to cause destruction they'll find a way.


I would first like to offer some rebuttal against the case that my opponent presented and then move on to my first argument.


Rebuttal 1: Stress trauma causing shooting

My opponent kept on listing these tragic statistics about students, trying to prove that students’ are under enormous stress. He also claimed that such pressure on student is directly related to gun shooting incidents. However, this is very untrue. Let us take look at South Korea, a country that is infamous for having many scary statistics. South Korea has the second highest suicide rate in the world (Highest among all 30 OECD countries). Korean students study for 14 hours in average [1]. HPI of South Korea ranks the lowest among 30 OECD countries [2]. Korean university graduates face serious problem in getting job. Around 89% of senior students in Korea attend university, which makes competition for job very tough. This proves that South Korean face huge amount of stress and pressure.

Despite the fact that South Korean face tremendous amount of stress, there has been only 1 shooting incidents in Korea, committed by civilian. Nevertheless, the crime was committed by a ranch owner, who always carried around an air rifle for the purpose of managing ranch and only two victims were killed [3].

This fact shows that stress of a nation do not equal to them going out and shooting people. It is the fact that guns are available that causes these shooting incidents. I will elaborate this further in my own argument.

Rebuttal 2: 0.012% causing trouble

My opponent claimed that only 0.012% of gun owners cause problems with their firearm, hence, gun control is not the problem. However, I would like to say that just because 0.012% is causing the problem, it does not give an excuse and claim that gun control is not a problem. 0.012% of entire gun owner (70~80 million) equates to 960,000 problematic gun owners. That number is close to a million which means there are about a million of gun owners that cause problems with their firearms. Divide a million by 365, which equates to 2739 shooting accidents per day.

Suicide rates are number of person committing suicide per 100,000. South Korea for example, has suicide rate of approximately 31.2 suicides per 100,000 which equates to about 0.000312% of the population committing suicide. Regardless of how small the percentage is, that percentage still equates to about 1560 person committing suicide (there is 50 million South Koreans). Small percentage does not mean it is not a big deal. Just because the majority is not causing problem, it does not mean gun control is not a problem. Please keep in mind that it is still a million problematic gun owners.

We also need to keep in mind that the statistics that my opponent gave is gun accidents that happened with properly registered firearms. However, there are countless un-registered and illegal firearms that contribute in crimes as well. So the credibility that only 0.012% of the gun owner cause problem is very questionable since the gun owner in the statistics is legal gun owner, not including those people who own gun through illegal path, that tend to commit more crime.

I would also like to say that my opponent threw bunch of statistics around but never did really mention how does this statistics prove that the individuals a bigger factor causing shooting incident, than the gun control itself. He basically failed to make the casual link and I have focused on pointing those out in my rebuttal. Now, I will move on to my first argument and explain why the gun control and the fact that they are allowed in the first place is more problematic than individuals causing incidents.

ARGUMENT 1: Means to commit shooting incidents

Sub-Point 1: When gun control is very strict

Referring back to Korean example again, there were 6 shooting events historically in Korea. Four were committed in the military, one by a police officer and the other one by a ranch owner (mentioned in the rebuttal). The culprits of these shooting incidents all have one thing in common – that they have higher accessibility to gun. Soldiers and police officer have regular shooting practices with live ammunitions. Police officers investing against violent crimes are assigned of their personal firearms. Soldiers in Korean military store their guns in individual firearm compartments that do not get secured with lock. It is very accessible.

However, outside of military, South Korean government places strict gun control among nation. Owning live ammunition guns are prohibited to begin with. Only way a South Korean citizen can access live ammunition legally in Korean soil is by joining military or at a legally permitted shooting range. Even air rifles require very strict permit by the government. The owner has to have no criminal record and other complicated documentations are required. On top of that, most calibers of air rifles are kept in local police department and the owners are only allowed to use them during hunting season. There are heavy limits on BB guns (air-soft guns) as well. All BB guns being sold in Korea has to have power under 1J and their gunpoint has to be manufactured in distinctive colors like orange so it is clear that the gun is a BB gun. Since there are less guns around due to strict gun control, citizens of Korea are less likely commit crimes with guns.

Sub-Point 2: When gun control is loose

However, the story becomes different when guns do become more accessible and this is the essence of the debate. Because there are guns around in the US, it becomes realistically possible to commit crime with gun.

In Korea, shooting incident that almost never happened among citizens happened five times by soldiers and police officer, both professions work around guns. This example makes it clear that gun being around only gave means to commit shooting crime. If there is a lower accessibility to guns to begin with, there is less likelihood for potential shooters to access gun.

The same goes for US. With few permits, guns that fire live ammunition can be bought in a low price in United States. A lot of guns are accessible through illegal means as well. Lethal air rifles that shoot out steel pellets at the speed of a thousand feet per second can be bought online.

All those facts back my claim that the gun control in US is very loose, compared to South Korea. Viewing that from the case of South Korea where shooting accidents only occurred in the case where guns were more accessible, it is correct to view that gun control is the bigger contributing factor to shooting incidents since both US and South Korea has unfortunate members of the society but South Korea do not have a million gun owners causing shooting incidents.

To summarize, South Korea is serves as a good example that shows both cases, where guns are very accessible and when they are not very accessible. When guns were not very accessible among citizens, only 1 minor shooting incident occurred. However, when gun did become very accessible like how it is in United States, there were five shooting incidents. Bottom line, accessibility ends up enabling shooting incidents.

As my opponent correctly said, guns do not make these criminals shoot others. However, guns give those means and make it possible for them to commit such things. Those people can cause destruction in one way or the other. Nevertheless, guns being so accessible only provide them with a very dangerous option of randomly shooting people. With stricter gun control, with less accessibility to gun, these people will definitely have fewer tendencies to pick up a rifle and start firing at random targets, killing 28 elementary students.





Debate Round No. 2


Counter to Rebuttal #1:
My argument was not reliant upon the stress level of students but rather that of their exposure to situations that can traumatize, instigate concepts of violence, and mentally harm them. While I do not refute the fact that both South Korea and the US have high levels of stress in relation to amounts of studying, I was not stating that their stress level was the sole contributing factor in that argument, rather that bullying, fear of violence, active participation in violence, as well as the levels of stress all together provide an environment that has children and adolescents growing up in a fearful and violent environment. This environment leads to "traumatic stress" which is a much different concept than the stress of tests and things such as that.

The stress children and adolescents face can lead to violent tendencies later on in life. In as high as 90% of child offenders, (, it was shown that they had experienced some form of childhood trauma and this was correlated with similar results to adult offenders. Based off of this, it is correct to assume that there is a highly likely chance that traumatic experiences in childhood, not academic stress but the bullying, fights, and fear as I actually mentioned, leads to violent behaviors, including mass murder and violence.

Counter #2
My first point is that your numbers are vastly wrong. I'm not sure where you get 960,000 as 0.012% of 70mil but the correct percentage from 70mil is 8,775. I'd like to know where you get this nearly a million problem gun owners? And to quote my previously cited page, ( " In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year." So, if total number of fatal accidents combined of all types is only 12.9% of your supposed nearly a million problem gun owners, where are the reports on these numbers?

Now, if we're talking accidents, which is not even the topic of this debate so you are not proving points with this argument, 613 accidents total with firearms. And to account the military and civilian firearms as you are mentioning in your other arguments, there are approximately 273,951,953 guns in the US. Of these 3,951,953 are military or police owned. The rest are civilian owned. Lets combine both accidents and homicides, a total of 10742 for the year 2007 (which the accident figure was taken from), 0.0038% of those guns actually had an incident.

Now in your argument you state that small numbers do not mean a big deal, and that through your argument, if there is even a small number of gun related problems they should be heavily regulated if not eliminated from civilian use. By that logic, in the case of suicide, should we not regulate ropes? Knives? Access to high places? In the case of accidents, 872 died in 2006 due to inhalation of food into the respiratory tract, compared to 613 accidental firearms deaths. By the logic of "small percentage does not mean it is not a big deal" then we should regulate food ingestion. 661 deaths by accidental suffocation or strangulation in bed, should we regulate sheets? (

The point I am trying to make is that there will always be small percentages, there will always be outliers and radicals but to impose regulations or, at worse, remove the rights on something due to a minute percentile then you are opening the door for restrictions on everything which counteracts the entire concept of freedom. Now that I have responded to the issue of suicide, which again is not up for debate but I see the point you were attempting to make, I shall return to the topic at hand.

Still in countering the second rebuttal, you state that this is only "legal gun owners" in this percentage. Actually that emphasizes my point even more. The numbers I gave you are factual, the numbers of owners, and the numbers of homicides and accidents. So taking the percentage from the number of legal owners that is assuming that legal owners are the ones committing crimes, which is in a majority, not the case, in fact, two-thirds of gun related deaths are results of criminal on criminal action, (i.e. gang violence, 94% of gang related violence is firearms related) ( So, by increasing the number of owners from not just the legal owners but to the illegal owners as well, (which I can't give you a number on as they can't tell you how many illegal owners there are), you are actually shrinking the percentage of number of gun owners that commit homicide with them. Increase the number of owners, keep the homicide level static and the percentage decreases. So the point that my number is shaky is correct, but the shakiness in that case would be in my favor as it would be stating that the percentage is smaller. Of course small percentages still matter though.

Rebuttal of Sub-Point 1
As I am running out of space I will keep this concise. You state that less access to guns means fewer shootings. I will not argue that is a valid point, because the whole concept of a shooting requires access to a gun. However, restricted access to firearms is not a measure of less violence or a reduction of violent tendencies. You use South Korea as an example, while I will not refute that there is a small number of firearms related deaths in SK, I would like to point out the overall homicide rate, 2.9:100,000, as of 2009 ( Now, lets look at another country with high gun control levels, the United Kingdom, 1.2:100,000. Similar laws, in fact a little looser laws, and less than half the homicide rate, ( Now, lets look at a place where there are 420,000 automatic firearms in civilian hands, over 700K individually owned firearms, and every male is required to own an automatic firearm from the approximate ages of 20-34, (give or take a few years), Switzerland. In 2009, 0.67:100,000 homicides ( Now, finally, the US, 4.96:100,000. In the US, automatic rifles are HIGHLY regulated, in Switzerland they are in every household. In the US, 47% of households have guns, in Switzerland 100% of households within the age range of 20-34 and a high percentage of those above that range possess guns. In the UK, half the homicide rate of S. Korea, yet similar gun laws.

Put all this in perspective, with vastly different numbers between countries with similar laws and drastic differences between countries that, according to my opponent's argument, should be high levels of gun crime, this leads to the conclusion that other factors are the reason for these crimes.

Final statement of the round:
My opponent claimed that I made no argument to prove that the individual is the cause of the actions or a bigger factor. However, by reducing guns as the contributing factor the only logical conclusion is that the individual or his outside influences are the greater concern. As my argument was to be based upon that guns are not the major factor in these crimes, by eliminating them as a major contributing factor through my arguments here, and issuing my arguments regarding the childhood trauma, which my opponent misinterpreted and I clarified in this as not "standard stress" but "traumatic stress or events," I leave it now open for my opponent to accurately refute my statements. Also, I'd still like to see where my opponent found his numbers that he vastly miscalculated.


I thank my opponent for his engagement.

Rebuttal 1: “Traumatic Stress”

We cannot exclude academic stress from traumatic stress as because level of pressure that South Korean students receive is truly tremendous. There are countless cases of Korean students committing suicide, not being able to withstand the academic pressure. All Korean students wishing to attend college have to learn AP level Calculus and Statistics. Korean students are only given one single chance to prove their academic skills on all fields. That test determines students’ course of life. Korean high-schools openly post ranking of individual students, from first to last and classroom sitting charts are based on grade. Maybe your specific URL that obviously is not the only truth does not include this type of stress as their definition of “traumatic stress”, but I am sure most of reasonable persons will agree that such academic circumstance that causes suicides is very traumatic and has a potential to make one reach their breaking point and commit radical action like murder, arson or even mass murder. Human beings do not kill themselves for something un-traumatic.

But even viewing from aspects of exposure to violence, Korean student still undergoes traumatic experiences in school. In the year of 2010, 353 students committed suicide due to reasons regarding violence and bullying in school [1]. That means about one student killed him/herself each day because violent circumstance they are under. Physically strong students in majority of Korean schools order weaker students to run their errands. Most of Korean public schools have ranking among students determined by physical fights. This obviously cannot be proven by data but it is the reality.

Korean student suffer from traumas coming from academics and school life but random shooting incidents in Korea is very rare. I have already proven that just because one is subject under traumatic experience, it does not mean one picks up a gun and starts shooting at 28 innocent lives. It is the fact that gun control is so loose that is problematic.

Rebuttal 2: The Outliers, Radicals, Small Percentage

I messed up my division. However, my essence of the argument remains the same. 0.012% of 70 million to 80 million still means 8,775 to 9,600. That is approximate number of homicides committed with gun in the US each year. There are about 15,000 homicides being committed each year according to This represents that about two third of homicides in the US are committed by guns. Even though it is only 0.012% of gun owners committing offences, when that 0.012% forms two third of the entire homicides happening each year, it surely is not “just a 0.012%”. I never said small numbers are not a big deal. Please recheck.

Rebuttal 3: Opening the door for restrictions on everything

My opponent argued that having stricter gun control to prevent further incidents of random mass murder opens a door for everything being restricted. However, that is a very naïve claim. Hundreds of other countries have so much stricter gun laws than United States. In majority of cases, (including SK, Russia, France, UK and China) few types of guns are allowed to those in “genuine need”. Majority of countries impose extremely strict laws on gun but these countries do not have the problem people’s freedom being violated. We all know gun is a fundamentally dangerous device. Many countries have strict control on cyanide but no one use this as a reason to “counteract the entire concept of freedom”. The function of gun itself is destruction and this tool of destruction being compared with rope and high places fallacious. Overall deaths (homicide, suicide, accident) by guns exceed 3000 each year just for your reference.

Rebuttal 4: Legal vs. Illegal Gun

The reason I stated the fact that there are huge amount of illegal guns as well, excluded from the statistics was to show how purposeless it is to use that specific percentage to marginalize gun killing since my opponent based his argument upon 0.012%.

My opponent also argued that percentage including illegal owners cannot be given and yet he argued that the number is in favor to him. Please explain how it is possible for a number to be not proven and yet, support a side.

Furthermore, what we really need to focus more on is the fact that there exists noticeable illegal gun market. Don’t let debates on validity of numbers distract you from the essence. Out of nearly 60 random shooting incidents happened over two decades in US, about 10 of those incidents were committed with illegally acquired firearms [2], which imply there is a significant black market of guns. Such illegal market is obviously the cause of loose gun control.

Rebuttal 5: Pro’s Rebuttal to my Sub-Point 1

Pro used overall homicide rate to prove that gun homicide rate is not correlated with gun control. That is a grave mistake. We should take a look at gun homicide rate, not overall homicide rate. If we take a look at the URL that Pro used, it is very easy to notice that countries with stricter gun control in fact do have dramatically lower rate of gun homicide compared to countries with loose gun control. Gun homicide rate of UK rates from between 0.08 to 0.03 per 100,000. South Korean is close to none, Netherland has average of 0.3 and France rates approximately 0.2. All the countries I have mentioned have strict gun control. This contrasts with US that has gun homicide rate of about 3. Estonia, with slightly loose gun control never had gun homicide rate under a whole number until 2004. Even cold-hearted statistics prove that looser gun control do in fact cause more gun incidents. This URL from Harvard also explains that more guns mean more homicide with guns [3].

Regarding Switzerland, my opponent is mistaken from many different aspects. First of all, not all men in Switzerland are required to own a gun in their household but the law differs from cantons to cantons. Most cantons usually store those weapons at public depots now since it is logically correct that guns being around inevitably do cause more homicide by guns. Other than that, all men and women of Switzerland receive military training to protect the country in emergency situations. But even so, Switzerland has an evidently high gun homicide rate. So my opponent is incorrect by far.

Pro also claimed that less access (meaning obviously stricter control) means fewer shooting incident is not a valid argument. However, that is very un-true. I already gave example of South Korea where two opposite environments (of guns being around and not being around) resulted in drastic juxtaposition of results. When guns were around, random shooting incidents happened few times over the course of two decades. Almost none of random shooting incident occurred in the civilian world.

Closing Statement:

Down the bench in this round, it has become clearer that every country has individuals suffering from traumatic experience that can do just about anything. That problem is widespread in anywhere around the globe. Hence, that is not the problem with random shooting incident viewing from that majority of countries do not have such shocking incidents very often. 15 out of 25 worst shooting incidents were caused in the US [4], which is the country that is very loose in gun control. This cannot be a coincidence. As I said, every country has troubled individuals. But what gives these people ability to shoot at random lives is the loose gun control itself. When radical individual is a shared problem of all countries, only explanation with problem with guns in the US is the gun control in the US.

If Pro wants to argue his stance that “people” are the bigger problem further, he must show why my argument that radical individuals are everywhere around the globe is not true and it is only problem of US.

Debate Round No. 3


#1 Academic stress may cause high levels of suicide but that does not equate to exposure to violence or violent situations. Nor does it show a correlation to post traumatic stress disorder or anything similar to that. My opponent makes his claim of students ordering around weaker students, in addition that some form of ranking is established through physical fights. However, he specifically states that this cannot be proven by data. I, however, showed data in relation to school violence, bullying, and fighting in my arguments, my data as well accounted for student numbers in the millions. If my opponent cannot back up his statements that the school systems in Korea are equally as violent and causes of trauma through exposure to violence I see no validation in his argument as to why my point is invalid. My data from multiple sources states that violence in youth, exposure to violence in school, and traumatic experiences and the resulting PTSD, all are high contributing factors in adolescent and adult violent tendencies. This fact therefore proves my points that school systems, environmental factors, and lack of proper treatment and support for children and youth for these issues is a significant and much more prevalent factor in what leads to these violent outbreaks as the debate is supposed to be targeting.

Also, in this point, my opponent claims "Human beings do not kill themselves for something un-traumatic." In fact, human beings do kill themselves for un-traumatic things all the time. Suicide is a huge problem in the world and while it is often attributed to traumatic things, it is not always. Many times it is due to mental disorders, (bipolar, clinical depression, BPD, schizophrenia, etc.) or due to substance dependency, whether legal or illegal, which can lead to suicidal behavior, or simply due to the aging process and not wanting to become old (14.3:100K for people 40-65, and 43:100K for white men over 85)( So the argument there is flawed and without basis that people commit suicide only for traumatic purposes. Trauma, especially the type due to violence exposure and PTSD, as I already illustrated with sources once, is a significant cause of violent tendencies later on. This, in addition to high cost and limited access to mental health treatment leads to a significant rise in potential offenders later on. In the US, over 50 Million people are uninsured thus requiring medical treatment to be paid out of pocket, (, many of this 16.3% live in areas that have the substandard educational systems and lack of proper environments and social services for children, thus leading to more risk of them turning violent later on.

One traumatic experience may not lead to that, but as my data proved in my last argument it is a significant risk to that happening later on. The high levels of violent trauma in the US (which my opponent failed to counter as he simply stated that it happens there with no data to back that claim up) among student and adolescents lead to higher probability of violence later in life. Thus why the US also has the highest number of juvenile and adult inmates in the world, because the society of the US, the educational systems and the lack of proper upbringing of children and proper care leads them to violent tendencies. Whether it be shootings, rape, burglary, assault, or whatever, the crime rate is high and it is due to problems in the society and environment not due to access to guns.

#2/4 First, I meant to state that my opponent claimed that small numbers do not mean it's not a big deal. That was a mistype and my apologies for the confusion. However, it does not change my argument that there will always be outliers and always be small percentages, if we make drastic changes based on these outliers then it will only cause problems. While I recognize the difference between a rope and a gun, it was a satirical analogy as to why we shouldn't change things drastically based on those small numbers. If 0.012% is enough to make sweeping changes, then my analogy was in respect to that, as those are other things that would need change.

As for my use of 0.012%, and my statements that his argument was in my favor, I did explain it in my last argument. As my opponent did not see that, I will re-explain. There are 70 million legal gun owners in the US, 8775 ACTUAL homicides not "apparent" as my opponent decided to claim as I did show the numbers, which equates to 0.012% of those legal gun owners being responsible for those homicides assuming that each one was committed by a single legal gun owner. Now, if my opponent wants an explanation here it is. There are no published statistics on exact numbers of illegal guns in the US. But lets take for example there are 5 million illegal gun owners in the US. Now the total number of gun owners is 75 million, not 70, therefore the number actually is now 0.0117% rather than the 0.0125% that it was in the previous numbers. So, the way it works in my favor is that by adding in illegal gun owners, you're reducing the percentage of total gun owners committing crimes. Now, since this is a hot section for my opponent, lets pull some data from a previous argument that states 90-95% of gun crimes are criminal on criminal (i.e. gang violence), therefore most likely an illegal firearm, so if my opponent wants to question the numbers I used in his favor I'll reduce them, now, if you want the more detailed statistics only 0.0012% were actual legal gun owners, 877.5 homicides.

#3 There are a lot of "fundamentally dangerous" devices out there. Guns have multiple purposes other than crime and war. Hunting, sport, self-defense, etc. As I stated previously, there are over 150K cases a year of self-defense involving a firearm when the victim felt in imminent danger. Yes, they may be dangerous but taking them from law-abiding citizens (99.98%) will not reduce the danger. It impedes on freedom by denying people the ability to defend their own lives and property. As previous data showed, the UK has a hot burglary rate 4.5 times higher than the US and studies showed that this was in part due to criminals fearing getting shot by an at home resident

#5 I see no logic in my opponents rebuttal of my use of the homicide rate. The point that was made through that argument is that violence is not reduced by high levels of gun control. Homicide does not reduce just because there is strict controls on guns. And as this debate is about, are guns the primary cause of these recent events or is there another source, using the total homicide rate shows that violence does not decrease indicating that there is a different problem rather than guns.

Take for example this article (, the UK instituted it's handgun ban in 1997, and since then has had a near doubling of gun related incidents since then. How did that reduce gun crime? Or violence overall? It didn't.

My opponent likes to argue that access to guns leads to more gun crime, sure, if criminals can get their hands on a weapons they'll use it, but the fact of the matter is, it's not the legal access to guns that is not causing these crimes. The guns are the weapon of choice but:
1. Violent crime and homicide is happening regardless of legal access to guns.
2. Legal guns are rarely the used weapon in these incidents.
3. Illegal weapons will be obtained regardless of how strict the laws are as illustrated in the UK article.
4. There is clearly an underlying cause of this violence that is rooted in something within the society.

My opponent needs to address these points as he has clearly not shown how loose gun control is the major factor in the cause of these incidents. By the way, the CT shooting was illegal guns


Even before starting my attack with opponent’s case, I would like to explain that my opponent already missed out on the fundamental essence of the debate. In this debate, “Recent and past shootings are not a gun control problem but a problem of society and the individuals”, Pro had to show that reason why these random shootings occur is due to social and individual problems, less of gun control. As I have correctly explained, problems with individual is common everywhere. The problem with individual is not something special only in the US; hence my opponent already failed his part. Of course gun control itself cannot make people to commit crime. That is not even what we are debating about. We are discussing the bigger contributing factor to frequent random shootings. 15 out of 25 worst shooting incidents occurred in US that have loose gun control. I asked opponent to address what makes US people a bigger problem than their gun control due to the fact that all countries have the same people problem but only US has such a dramatic gun control problem.

In this round, I would like to offer some further attack to defense that my opponent gave in the previous round. The numberings will stay identical.

Attack 1: Trauma

My opponent kept on explaining that students in US receive so much traumatic experience and that causes them to pick up guns and randomly shoot at people. He gave medical explanation on what kind of things cause people to commit suicide or violent crimes and that US has highest inmate numbers. However, those claims do not tie back to the debate by two reasons.

Firstly, I already have shown through statistics that it is not only US where students experience violence and bullying but in fact, the problem also exist in Korea and yet there has been no shooting incident with live ammunition in civilian area in South Korea.

Secondly, the implied premise that United States citizen are more prone to crime than any other country is wrong. To support this, my opponent gave statistics that United States has the highest inmate number. Nevertheless, “violent crimes” that my opponent clearly specified that is a result of traumatic experience is at highest rate in the UK where only 18 people are murdered with guns.

It is also noteworthy how he concluded saying “crime rate is high and it is due to problems in the society and environment not due to access to guns.” We can already notice that my opponent is far off the topic. We are discussing the bigger contributing factor to random shooting incidents, not crimes in general. Of course crime happens because of the people. As my opponent correctly said, they will commit crime anyways. But what enables them to aim at 28 innocent lives is loose gun control that gives them access to guns.

Attack 2/4: 0.012% or 0.0117%

My opponent kept focusing overly on percentage that includes illegal guns. However, he is still missing out two things.

Firstly, it does not matter if it is 0.012% or 0.0117% or even lower. What we know is that there are about 10,000 gun homicides each year and that gun is used in 2/3 of murder in the US. Such percentage under decimal might seem very minute. However, as my opponent said, there are 80 million owners. “We shouldn’t change things drastically on those small numbers.”? Every single passenger in airplane has to have their baggage and body checked in security because of terrorists. I want everyone reading this debate to remember that 10,000 dead bodies each year in US have bullet holes in them out of 15,000 total deaths.

Secondly, the fact that so much illegal gun exists is what we really need to get. There is noticeable black market of guns, big enough to even affect the percentage that “favors” my opponent. I do not see the necessity to discuss this further.

Attack 3: Ability to defend their own lives and property

In this part, my opponent is being very inconsistent with his own argument. He previously claimed that having stricter control on guns will open a possibility for everything to be restricted like ropes and access to high places. He now changed his argument and I claiming that it impedes people’s freedom to defend them. Let me deal with this brand new argument first and also explain an interesting concession my opponent made. We live in modern world. We do not need to defend ourselves but there are law enforcers that does. We do not live in the time of Wild West where it was necessary to defend ourselves with our own ways. Now laws are there and that is in fact that spirit of the modern world. Instead of guns, there are also other tools that can be used to defend ourselves. Even so speaking under assumption that we are in desperate need to protect ourselves, there are sprays, bats or even fists that can serve better for the purpose of self-defense. We are not banning the learning of boxing or karate but a powerful tool that facilitates crime so much. If my opponent’s case is true, then all countries that do not guarantee right to possess gun should have people fearing about their safety. Ironically, US have the highest inmate numbers.

Now, let me mention the concession my opponent made. I claimed that primary purpose of gun is destruct. In destruction, it includes notion of hunting, targeting and self-defense since a bullet is traveling at speed of sound and penetrating through an object. Regardless of its purpose, guns shoot bullet that is made to destroy and for that it is fundamentally dangerous. That is why controlling strict on guns is not impeding anyone’s freedom.

The UK example is does not work because it was specifically on hand guns. Now in UK, where automatic, semiautomatic assault rifles and hand guns are prohibited, there are about 18 total gun homicides (2009).

Attack 5: Rates

I am very confused by my opponent who gave overall homicide rate in debate about gun control and is now blaming me for giving a correct and appropriate statistics. Guns themselves of course cannot commit crimes. It is always the humans that cause crimes. But in this debate, I have proved that guns give means to those who are going to commit crime to shoot at 28 innocent lives. I do not understand how this debate required overall homicide rate. To prove that there are other factors to crimes than guns? That is a truism that I cannot rebut which is also considered as logical fallacy in a debate.

It is very clear that my opponent is misled in the debate. He gave some truisms that there are other contributing factors in crime overall and later on explained why guns should not be strictly controlled. He explained that only 0.012% causes crime which is irrelevant.

I do not disagree that problems with people are a cause of mass shooting incidents to a certain extent. But gun control is the main cause because it gives them means to shoot at 28 innocent children. With stricter gun control like South Korea, China and Australia, these troubled individuals that exist everywhere will have less chance to pick up a rifle and fire randomly in the first place.

My opponent in the end admitted that if criminals can get their hands on a weapon, they will use it. By that, he essentially lost the debate. Guns are the weapons of choice and because of that fact, mass shootings occur. If guns are controlled, people will commit crimes but they would not be able to shoot at random citizen, causing tens of death.

1. Violent crimes and homicides happen regardless of legal access to guns but that is not the essence of this debate. We are discussing mass shootings.

2. Out of about 60 mass shootings that occurred for past two decades, 10 were done with illegal weapons.
3. UK only has about 18 gun homicides each year and I never argued illegal weapons will never be obtained.
4. Of course there is a cause of violence and that is why crimes happen all the time. But what causes mass shooting primarily is high access to guns for they make them so easy to commit.

Please come up with points and attacks regarding this specific motion.

Debate Round No. 4


As much as I would like to propose a rebuttal to my opponent, as stated in the initial round, Round 5 is for closing statements and finalizing your own argument, not to react to the opponents claims. That being said I will offer my final arguments.

The debate that has ensued in the past few days has been thrown all over the map. While the cases presented by myself and my opponent have varied and the interpretation of the debate has been skewed on both sides, it has nonetheless brought out some significant points.

My stance remains the same, as expected in a debate, gun control is not the major issue that contributes to "recent and past shootings." Let me make this clear, that throughout this debate my position was not focused on strictly the Oregon and Connecticut shootings, but all in the past decades. To this end, I believe that my argument was defended and proven. While it does remain true that shootings do correlate to the use of guns, the question, as proposed in the initial round, was that gun control is not the most important factor to be considered in the wake of these tragedies.

While is has been said that I deviated from the purpose of the debate, I see no validity to this. The argument I put forth, including non-gun homicides, the statistics, the data, and all other information, was to show the readers that regardless of gun control laws, regardless of access to guns, illegal guns or not, the most important issue was something much different. Sure, without guns there would be no shootings, just like without knives or other pointy objects there would be no stabbings, but the question remains, what is the most important underlying factor. To this end, I have proven my point.

Gun laws have, and I have proven this through my data, not been effective in both reducing crime and reducing gun crime even in some cases, (I just now realized that I copied the wrong link in the previous round, the final link of that round should have been this includes crime with both homicide and non-homicide actions. Because they have not deterred gun crime or in some cases it has increased, I have proven my case that gun control is not the most important factor in these shootings.
1. The gun control laws have not reduced gun crime in many cases, and in some cases has increased other crime.
2. If it is not as effective as advocates for gun control say it is then it would be logical to assume that there are more important issues to discuss.

The fact of the matter is that stricter gun laws do not work in deterring both gun crime and regular crime. This was not a debate about mass shootings but shootings overall, and as such I have proven my point that an extremely small percentage of those legally owning guns have committed any crime with them. If that is the case then it is only logical to assume that those that have illegally obtained weapons are the ones that commit the crimes, and as presented in the UK article that I posted above, gun control does not stop these crimes from happening, in fact it increases the chances. The reason for this was presented in my PDF file from gunfacts, which states that many criminals were deterred from committing a crime due to the fact that they were scared they may be shot. The only way a criminal with an illegally obtained weapon may be scared that he may be shot is if there is a chance that the law-abiding citizen that they are threatening may potentially have a legally obtained firearm.

The ultimate reality is that there are people that want to kill, hurt, injure, steal, and otherwise cause problems in the world. While it is true that they may use guns, this has been going on long before we had guns, and will continue after. In a modern and civilized society, we can sit here and talk about cutting away individual tools for these problems, but in the long run it will not solve the problem. As the statistics show, crime does not decrease with gun control. If gun control doesn't deter crime then gun control is not the issue that we should waste our time trying to legislate. As the purpose of this debate was for, to determine the most important factor, let it be shown that I have proven through validated data and argument that gun control does not reduce gun crime, crime overall, nor does it increase the safety of the people. Because of this it can only be logically concluded that the most important factor is that there is something wrong with the society we live in and the mental health of the individuals. Strip away all the legally owned guns from everyone, if it doesn't reduce crime, or even reduce gun crime (as proven in the UK) then it was clearly a wasted effort.

Lawmakers spend months and years debating whether this issue is important and whether we should enact stricter gun control laws that are consistently proven wrong. There is a reason that the anti-gun control lobby is the largest in the US, it is because people on both parties understand that banning guns is a bad idea and that while a few concessions may be made, and I am not arguing that gun control is not a topic that doesn't need to be discussed at all, it is not the most important issue surrounding these crimes. Shootings or not, they are crime, gun control or not the crimes could and most likely would still happen. As illustrated a few rounds ago, in Oklahoma City, hundreds were injured or killed without a single shot fired, in New York City, September 11, 2001 not a single shot was fired. February 28, 2012, 1 police officer and 15 pedestrians were killed and 14 injured in China with only axes and knives ( May 25, 2012, Houla, Syria, 108 people killed, 49 of them children (, with knives. The fact of the matter is there are people that want to kill, whether with guns, knives, bats, fists, cars, or spoons, it doesn't matter, there are people that want to kill and injure and cause problems. To quote a popular movie, "Some people just want to see the world burn."

We can take any measures we want to ban these weapons, but the problem is people will still get them or other weapons. The issue that needs to be focused on is what is causing these shootings, what is triggering people to commit these atrocities, guns are not causing them, people are causing them, and it is the people that need to be the target of the national and global debate. How can we help these people and prevent them from injuring others? Strip them of legally obtaining one type of weapon (when they're using illegal means of obtaining them anyway) is not going to help. It will only endanger those who once had the option of legally obtaining them.

I now have concluded my argument and wish to part with one final issue. Removing guns from the hands of legal owners does not help but endangers the public. I keep returning to that UK article that states gun crimes doubled, in addition to the gunfacts file that showed that criminals are deterred by potentially armed civilians. Let me point to another article, one compiled by someone, and while the site may not be seen as academic, sources in the article are shown, ( In this it is shown that of the mass shootings (or rampage/spree/school shootings) that have happened in the recent past, police intervention, due to response time and "assessing the situation" resulted in an average of 14.27 deaths per incident, whereas ones with civilians intervening resulted in 2.33 per incident. In addition, unarmed civilians resulted in 2.6 deaths per incident, and 1.8 per incident with armed civilians. Not as drastic a difference but if small numbers count then it is.

Overall, legal guns save lives. Outlawing them doesn't work. The most important issue is helping the individuals.


Once again, I thank my opponent for this engagement in this debate. I will summarize the entire debate in this round.

My opponent was gravely mistaken throughout the entire debate. But not only this, his argument was inconsistent as the debate went on.

Pro started off debate arguing about how much of stress that people in the US receives and how this causes people to commit crimes like randomly shooting at others. He pulled some statistics to prove the level of stress that students receive and gave some professional statements about how does things induce violent tendencies. In this he attempted to show that social and individual problems are of a bigger contributing factor than gun problems. Nevertheless, the fact that people receive stress did not prove why it is a bigger contributing factor since it became clear by my argument that the problem of individuals pretty much exists everywhere. In Korea, one student commits suicide each day due traumatic stress coming from bullying and violence. Our society is made in a way that clash between individual is inevitable, hence making troubled individuals exist everywhere. The rest of the world that have troubled individuals just like US, but the fact that 15 worst mass shooting incident out of 25 occurred in the US only can be explained by the fact that US has such a loose gun control. I also gave a perfect example of South Korea where two opposite environment exists. In military, guns are very loosely controlled like how it is in the US but contrary to that, it is illegal to own a gun and very difficult to obtain an illegal firearm through illegal methods. The result indicated that it surely do mean that more guns loose do mean more likelihood of mass shooting. In order to prove the motion that “Recent and past shootings are not a gun control problem but a problem of society and the individuals”, my opponent had to show why problem of people is more problematic in the US. Every country has problems with people yet many countries forbid guns. This inevitably draws the conclusion that loose gun control eventually means more mass shooting and in order to pursue his case, Pro should have showed way people problem is so much more of problem than guns being around in causing mass shooting.

Pro’s main stream of argument then changed. He started explaining how gun control does not contribute to overall homicide rate. Nevertheless, this is very irrelevant to begin with since we are debating about the bigger cause of mass shooting. In no part of the topic, does it include how gun control aids and abet people to cause crime. But even so, 2/3 of homicide happens due to guns. That is really an alarming rate that emphasizes the importance of strict gun control.

After that I gave examples of many countries that forbid guns having considerably lower number of gun homicides, my opponent suggested another argument that strict controls on gun can possibly open a window for everything being restricted on the excuse that it can be dangerous and limiting freedom of people. However, there is no one that will use something dangerous being limited as an excuse to limit something like ropes and access to high places. Then the argument transformed into a “limiting freedom to self-defense and security”. But this is invalid since there are law enforcers that protect us and there are also other tools that better suits the purpose of self-defense. This is also contradictory since loose gun control in fact what poses greater threat that has to be defended with guns to begin with.

Then Pro’s argument shifted to how having stricter gun control would not mean there is less crime rate. He argued that banning legal weapons will only endanger those who legally protect themselves from criminals who will commit crime with illegal weapons anyways. This is invalid because the fact that such a huge market for illegal firearm exists is because there is a loose gun control to begin with. The stricter gun control is, lesser illegal firearm there will be. But this is very irrelevant as well. We are discussing mass shooting incidents.

There is not much left in this debate. My opponent kept on alternating his argument after his first relevant argument was challenged. I have shown that loose gun already gives mean for criminals that exist everywhere in every country to shoot randomly. That is why shooting incidents are so common in the US where gun is actually allowed. The fact that guns are easily seen and are around also provides the idea of picking up a gun and randomly taking 28 lives. All in all, loose gun control gives mean and the idea for mass shooting incident.

Down the bench, I have successfully proved my case while my opponent was not able to settle his argument at a single focus. I advocate my stance in this debate for social safety, less gun crimes and no more victims of mass shooting incident.

Please vote for Con. Merry Christmas to all.

Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bla60ah 3 years ago
While the US has a higher gun crime rate, it also has a much larger population and land mass than most of the other western countries. Also, the violent crime rate is still very high in other western countries, higher than in the US.
Posted by babyy 3 years ago
Hello dear, my name is Ester, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail iD(esteredmond(at )ymail.c o m)
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Oh, yeah! We take the "gun" to court as well as the "people." Then the judge finds the "gun" guilty instead of the people. Can we take inanimate objects to court?

Is that infantile concept that you are trying to sell as you claim that "Guns do not kill people, people kill people." So if you accept the fact that people kill people, why do you want to provide them with guns? Citizens can run from a hammer, but not from an AR-15.

Canadian, if you going to post something, you had better defend your argument with facts instead of denigrating my person. Real debaters offer facts backing up their claims, not excuses. Come on, everyone expects better from you. Do not disappoint your followers!
Posted by Canadian-In-Florida 3 years ago
Aned, now you're really starting to piss me off, by directly insulting me in comments on two of my debates. Sure one was with you but now you're just acting childish.

Anyone still reading this please just ignore this person, he's only posting insulting and opinionated comments that are just meant to anger and insult. It's immature behavior that shouldn't be acknowledged any further amongst people wishing to have intelligent debate.
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
I mean "sell," not sale.
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Based on Canadian simplistic philosophy, a gullible citizen could conclude that "Nuclear bombs do not kill people, people kill people." Oh yeah! Now let evil Iran build its nuclear bomb! Doesn't it sound familiar?

We all know that a gun is an inanimate object, which cannot walk, nor aim, nor press its trigger on its own. So, do not try to sale us that basic assumption that only people can kill people and that guns are not directly related to homicides.

Change has come! Children count too!
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Why are you trying to say that "Guns do not kill people, people kill people."? Are you trying to convince us that guns are not inanimate objects? Obviously, we know that a gun cannot walk nor aim nor press its trigger on its own! What kind of simplistic mentality are you portraying!

Based on your basic and cheap (facile) assumption, we, then, could say: "Nuclear bombs do not kill people, people kill people." Oh yeah! Now let evil Iran build a nuclear bomb!
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
Three Norms votes on these debates are starting to piss me off.
Posted by Canadian-In-Florida 3 years ago
Ironic those got posted same time. I will create the debate tomorrow as I am off to sleep now.
Posted by Canadian-In-Florida 3 years ago
I love how you assume I lost the debate with you because I want to engage in an actual one. Your argument relies on opinion and emotionally fueled idealistic concepts. None of which hold any merit. I didn't lose anything I also never said lets start over. For all I care copy and paste your argument directly into the new debate. And if you're so certain you beat me here in this and you had enough time to wrote it all out you should have no problem with time. The truth is other than getting mad you have no evidence. Your statement about going to Connecticut holds no evidentiary value, I could say take away all cars want evidence go to a car crash scene with a school bus. That's where evidence plays because single incidents, no studied cases, and unbased facts mean nothing. Is it a tradgedy? Yes absolutely. Is it a basis for outlawing all guns? I say no but to prove that I would need evidence. Guns also save lives. In the debate it clearly shows that when citizens waited for police intervention vs armed citizens acting out during mass shootings that per incident over 16 less people died.

Sure make claims about me losing this or whatever. I'm not the one too scared to back up my claims. If this was a physical fight then I'd see why you'd try and "be the bigger man" and not step up. But this is not a physical fight, this is a respectable forum in which it is acceptable to engage in a disagreement, and you're just making excuses. You got the time to spout unfounded and unbacked claims on comments where there is no judge, you're the equivalent of that one annoying kid with the big older brother that would talk trash cause he could with his brother around but on his own he would run away. Man up and stand for your convictions. You're just embarrassing yourself now.

I got no problem backing up my beliefs. What worth are beliefs and opinions if you're not willing to back them up?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years 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: I came into this debate neither agreeing nor disagree with either premise. Trying to establish what the "bigger problem" here is difficult, as (to me) the problem is both poor gun control (which doesn't mean that the solution is necessarily MORE control, but rather BETTER control) AND "society and the individuals" in equal measure. And with Gun Control (particularly in the US), theory and application are quite far apart. Neither side had better conduct. Spelling and grammar should technically go to Pro, but Con gets points for arguing in a secondary language, which ties it. Sources were about equal. Con made more convincing arguments within the context of the debate; even though I think some of them fall quite flat, they are better than Pro, who certainly established that other things factor in, but I feel Pro failed to establish the case that those things are MORE important than gun control. Good debat
Vote Placed by threenorns 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote 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: i am already pro gun control but i gave the debate an honest reading - pro failed to convince me. his numbers, as was pointed out, did not align with my own research and the logic was flawed. ppl all over the world suffer horribly but don't go busting into schools to wipe out six year old children. let us not forget that on the same day, a man in china attacked 22 schoolchildren with a knife resulting in ZERO deaths. yes, i agree with con that suicide is *always* the result of traumatic suffering, even in the case of mental illness or not wishing to grow old, etc - it's not up to us to validate what someone else views as being traumatic.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote con because of the argument that people will always find a reason to do bad things they really want to do them. Pro has better grammar, but I'm leaving it tied as I understand English is not Con's first language. I also give Pro sources for offering both better and more evidence. If either debater wants further clarity on my RFD feel free to PM me.
Vote Placed by richarddong 3 years 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Wanna make IKE LOSE
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Because I agreed with Pro coming in, I will admit to some bias towards Pros arguments. That said, Cons arguments were seriously considered. Pro's arguments that these mass killings take place despite the many laws which were broken... Laws which failed to prevent the shootings... is well taken. We can't control criminals by further controlling the law abiding.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 3 years 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: Pro had BOP. Pro basically showed that because so few shootings happen, gun control is not a problem, to reach the conclusion that only those few should be targeted. Pro never really told us how to do that, but it didn't matter. Con spent a lot of time trying to show that some shootings are a problem, and then proved without guns shootings would not be a problem. Con's rebuttal was relatively shallow and mostly statistics-based. The issue, however, is that pro's rebuttal was equally simple - of course you need a gun to shoot. Then all con needed to say was that guns are worse than, say, knives, which he did. So overall this debate convinced me that BOTH society/individuals AND gun control are contributing causes of gun violence. Pro did prove that it is a problem of society and individuals, but not that it wasn't a problem of gun control, and that's why pro could not meet BOP. Good work, though, to pro on a tough resolution. Any questions just message me.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had burden of proof, but I thought his points were successfully rebutted by Con. In particular, Pro didn't really explain how "society and the individuals" were to blame for the shooting, except in a vague way. If he had put forward a clear mechanism whereby shootings could be prevented without gun control, he would have been much more convincing.