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

Should there be law on gun control?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 196 times Debate No: 115166
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Should there be a law on gun control? yes or no.


Gun control is a complex subject. However, I will present to you why we should not have laws governing it. Before I can get into my reasoning I will first offer an observation, this question does not give a specific law. In addition "gun control" is vague. So for the structure of my case I will present and argue against a common form of gun control, Universal Background Checks.
A UBC is basically a law that makes it so that anybody who tries to buy a gun has to receive a background check. In previous proposals of this people have talked of banning people with mental illnesses, people who have committed crimes, illegal immigrants, as well as others. Now this is where we start seeing the problem with it. Banning the mentally ill presents a huge issue. According to the American Civil Liberties Union(1), the ACLU, generally people with mental illnesses are not only less likely to commit violent crimes, but they are actually more likely to be targeted for gun violence. This is clearly unjust, which presents a moral reason why we should not implement this. A second population that will be harmed by this are people in lower socioeconomic classes. This quote from The Hill(2) exemplifies what I mean, "These background checks are also costly. They can add, for instance, north of $150 to the cost of a gun in Washington, D.C. That fee can put guns out of reach for the most likely victims of violent crime, such as poor minorities living in high-crime areas. These costs may explain the finding that these checks actually increase some types of crime." Now this is another sector of the population that will be harmed by these rules. Now this is bad, but you might be thinking the benefits outweigh the harms. However this is simply not true. This is because UBCs are generally ineffective. The reason for this lies in the difference between public and private gun transactions. We can to some extent track and regulate public transactions, but we can"t do that for private ones. And according to the National Review(3) 80% of all gun sales are private, not public. In addition the Hill(2) says that research looking into U.S. gun violence statistics has found no evidence linking background checks to a reduction in gun violence. And there's more. A CDC Task Force(4) also found no evidence linking reductions in violence to UBCs. So to summarize, UBCs harm people with mental illnesses and poorer people, and this is on top of it not being effective.
Now you might be thinking, this is only one law, what about other laws. Well first of all as I talked about before the question does not give context, so it is my job to contextualize it. Second of all, all forms of gun control would require some amount of money to take on. Now either this money would be added to taxes already in existence, or, most likely, would be made up for with a tax on guns. And we can apply this to the evidence from the Hill I brought up earlier. In addition to this any gun control law that requires a central repository of data, is not only illegal under the 10th amendment, but also would be vulnerable to attack. Equifax and other large scale cyber attacks provide us with enough evidence to show that said central repository of data is a dangerous thing. In summary we can see that all gun control laws have an accompanying danger, and thus we should not implement them.
In conclusion, UBCs make a good example of gun control and fill a hole that this question has. UBCs also have several problems accompanied with them. The first is that they are ineffective. I have presented several sources that show the utter lack of efficacy, including the Hill and the CDC. A second problem is that it harms poorer people and the mentally ill. So it"s clear the harms outweigh the benefits when it comes to UBCs. In terms of general gun control laws they can also harm the lower economic classes. And if those gun laws require a central repository of data they are vulnerable to attack and illegal. So for these reasons we must conclude that the these gun laws are immoral, ineffective, and this should not be implemented.

My Sources:
- Leveille, Vania, and Susan Mizner. "Gun Control Laws Should Be Fair." American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, 21 Feb. 2017

- contributor, John Lott Jr. opinion. "Background Checks Do Not Diminish Crime Rates, but Can Increase Them." TheHill, The Hill, 5 Oct. 2017,

- VerBruggen, Robert. "Private Gun Sales: The Numbers." National Review, 16 Jan. 2013,
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.