Should Gun Control Policies be Passed?
Debate Rounds (4)
Thank you for debating this important topic of gun control. Here's the way the debate will go:
1st Round = Acceptance
2nd Round = Arguments Pro/Con, NO rebuttals
3rd Round = Rebuttals
4th Round = Rebuttals to Rebuttals, Final Remarks
Good luck! Feel free to say anything you want about the topic.
Lets do it
Thanks for accepting so quickly! I'm pretty much going to be saying WHY gun control won't work in America and anywhere else, really.
Reason 1: Gun Control actually promotes shootings and the like.
A. With no armed citizens to prevent shootings, the amounts of domestic gun violence will increase dramatically - it's proven!
i. In D.C., shootings increased dramatically after gun laws were put in place. 
ii. In Chicago, someone is shot every 3 hours, despite their strict gun laws. 
B. Making something illegal just makes it more coveted by people who want to harm the public.
Reason 2: Gun Control does nothing to stop shootings and illegal guns getting shipped into America.
A. Gun Control only makes it harder to buy guns in the United States. It doesn't stop guns from getting smuggled in.
B. People can always find a way to get what they want, no matter the rules. This applies everywhere, from a little kid getting the candy they want to gang members selling cocaine.
Reason 3: Guns are far more often used to prevent crime than to cause crime, even if they're aren't actually used. 
A. Guns are estimated to prevent more than 2,500,000 crimes in the United States per year. 
Reason 4: Everybody that people can't stand are pressing for gun control. Those people that nobody can stand are power-hungry. Not to get into politics for anything, but every time Obama says "gun control", gun sales go higher. 
Let me know why you support gun control. Talk soon!
P.S. Please read the websites listed below, as they'll give you more information on the subject.
Reason 1: Guns are hardly used in self defense
Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior.
Source: Michael Planty and Jennifer L. Truman "Firearm Violence, 1993-2011,"
Reason 2: No one should own a military grade weapon:
Why would anyone need to own a military grade weapon, it just does not make any sense why we can't ban those.
Reason 3: Guns cause so much voilence
There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 270,237 suicides (58.2% of total deaths); 174,773 homicides (37.7%); and 9,983 unintentional deaths (2.2%). 66% of all deaths are by guns.
Source: The CDC
Reason 4: Common sense tells us that people should get backround checks if they want a gun.
A Backround check prevents bad people from getting a gun, not a good person who would want one.
Reason 5: A place with a gun present is more dangerous and more deadly.
The FBI found that in 2013 arguments (such as fights) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths.
Source: The FBI
My rebuttals ordered by reason:
1. That's most likely because most people don't own guns in the US - really only 10 million people out of the 320 million living in the US. That means that only 3.125% of the US population actually owns guns, which is close to your 0.79% of victims (as in ~2%). https://www.quora.com... this for more information regarding the topic.
2. What about military people? What about people that live in places where there are lots of crimes (like Chicago) and they need to protect themselves?
3. It's not the guns that cause the violence, it's the people that hold the guns. The guns are inanimate; they can't pull their own trigger themselves. Yes, there should be regulations on people that have mental diablities and stuff like that, but they're still the ones that pull the trigger. Again, out of 10 million people that own guns, that's only 4% of everybody that owns guns.
4. Do you really think people are going to be able to get a background check in secluded places like Alaska and Montana? It just doesn't make sense if the rule is going to be federal. Also, bad people are still going to get guns, however they do it. Even if they don't have guns, they can still commit crimes, for example, with a knife or a machete.
5. Out of 10 million people that have registered guns, 1,962 people amounts to about 0.0196%. That's a tiny number!
Tell me what you think about my original arguments, and in Round 4, we'll discuss each of our rebuttals.
My rebuttals in order the arguments are presented:
1. How strict can chicago's laws be if everyone there has a gun? If none of those gang members were able to get guns then there would be no shottings. For DC you have to consider if other things are causing an increase in murders. There's a hidden side to everything, and strict gun laws may not be to the only cause.
2. Yes a person can get a gun anyway they want, but legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals. A June 2013 Institute of Medicine report states that "almost all guns used in criminal acts enter circulation via initial legal transaction.". Most guns are not gotten by illegal transactions.
3. Yes, by police and people that leagaly own them by backround checks.
4. Not really sure about this one.
My rebuttals to your rebuttals in numerical order:
1. For Chicago, if more people had guns, they could protect themselves against gang members that have guns. And like I said, bad people will always find ways to get guns or some other kind of weapon, which no kind of gun laws will prevent. As for DC, I'm pretty sure they were talking about shootings.
2. Anybody in their right mind would have the sense to store guns in combination safes that are bolted to the ground from the inside; that way there's no way someone could steal it. Also, "Institution of MEDICINE"? They work with medicine, not preventing shootings and the like. Also, some shootings, I should point out, are caused by bullying/cyberbulling.
3. I agree with the "legally" part about it; however, if there's no criminal record there shouldn't be any need for a background check. Also, what would the background check (that probably wouldn't work) entail?
4. Probably because there's nothing to argue with there...
Amazing debate, look forward to hearing your response and rebuttals to my rebuttals.
Here are my rebuttals to yours in order of appearance:
1.According to the Congressional Research Service there are more than 300 million guns in the USA. This is 93 guns per 100 people. Therefore my orginal argument still stands.
2.I meant guns that are literaly made for mass shootings. People can protect themselves from people with guns that are not meant to mass kill, so it seems illogical for people to have them.
3. I mostly agree with you one this on the part were people kill poeple not guns, but again there are 93 guns per 100 people. Also how do we keep people with mental disabilities from getting guns? probably background checks for everyone. Backround checks would entail of checking for mental health issues or a history of a violent crime inthe past.
4. Why couldn't they, there are gun shops that can do background checks that are regulated by the government. Its not to much of a hassel for someone to go to a gun shop to buy a gun to get it legaly. Knifes are way less dangerous then guns, poor argument.
5. The presence of guns still causes voilence. 2000 people is a very high number still. Not my strongest argument, but still I think it shows that the presence of guns does cuase violence.
Great argument. You brought up some compelling points and I'm excited to see who votes to win.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.