The Instigator
Con (against)
13 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Stricter Gun Control in America

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,495 times Debate No: 32625
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




First debate here :)

Anyways, I think stricter gun control laws should not be supported. Against popular belief, guns are much more useful than what people think. Reasons, I will state later.



at least have more background checks. as of now forty percent of all gun sales are done legally, and without a check. around eight in ten americans support it. you could be the worst criminal in the world, and buy a gun, legally. why allow access to criminals and those who are mental, access that is so easy.
are you trying to say checks won't prevent even one person from getting a gun who isn't o shouldn't have one? if even a few people are blocked, we should have checks. not everyone will automatically go to the black market to get a gun. most criminals aren't black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. most are just people who shouldn't have a gun, and many wont have one if they are not legally allowed to, and especially if there are laws that prevent them from having them. sure many will do it all illegally, but not all. and this will surely reduce murder and crime etc if they don't have a gun at a time theyd commit a crime.
why not at least try universal checks? at worst it's a mere inconvenience. in reality and almost surely at best it will save lives and reduce crime.
Debate Round No. 1


I am not sure if you are completely against or for stricter gun control or no guns at all but I will proceed to state my arguments.

Today we look at media and stare in horror as gun murders are in the headlines around the world yet we fail to realize how many times guns are actually used to HELP other people.

"Guns are used 80x more often to protect a life than to take one!"

3/5 Polled Felons wont mess with an armed victim.

200,000 women protect themselves with a gun ever year

Gun ownership rate in America - 88.8 (1st place)

Homicide rate in America - 4.8 (103rd place)

The United Kingdom has no gun laws, yet there are 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 and there are only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 in America. Kitchen knives are the common weapon of choice.

Kennesaw Georgia passed a law stating required ownership of a gun in ever household. Burglary rates 89%.

More statistics at my source:

Overall, I would like to say, because of the media blowing up news on gun homicides and massacres, there is somewhat of a public ignorance on the benefits of gun ownership. Contrary to popular belief, guns are HELPFUL and PROTECT innocents more than you think. Thank you.


I showed that some gun control is good, namely background check. I can also cite studies that show violence is reduce w checks, and other limitations on guns. see previous debates by me, or I can cite them if you want.
your assertion that we should have no limitations then, is baseless, if you want to reduce violence.
also, if a person has a gun, even if justmany many times more likely to use it for a crime.... that's why its considered safer for most people to not have guns at all in their home. they are more likely to be the worse fo it in terms of violene\ce. I can cite this study too if you want

America might not be the worst in the world in violence, but it's only behind third world roque countries. compared to its economic counterparts, America is worst.

knives might be more dangerous sometimes, but only cause they are so prevalent. you might be a hundred times more likely to be stabbed than shot, but there's thousands more knives than guns.

I have a feeling you will contest my assertions and will need to cite my studies. I would be happy to if you requie it. and no one has refuted the evidence when I posted it.
it's really not debateable.
Debate Round No. 2


Please cite your studies :)

Obviously, some background checks are required and which we do have today. However, it IS safer to have guns in people's home. I just stated my ENTIRE argument saying that. My source backs this up.

Also, it is not only behind third world countries. Like I showed you, United Kingdom has far more violent crimes than America. And it doesn't matter how many knives than guns... why does that make any difference.

And by the way, how does the fact there are more knives than guns show anything? Obviously, there are more knives in the world. But you forget to mention nearly all these knives are either combat knives in self defense or cooking knives.

It is and will forever be debatable as long as there are two different opinions.


plus it's just common sense that at least certain controls like more background checks will have some effect. particulaly since almost half of guns are sold w out checks
even if it wasnt statistically significant, it could only have a positive effect.
a few lives saved might not be statistically significant but it can oly be lives saved w any control.
especially background checks id agrue but i digress

control "is not a conservative-liberal issues or a left-right issue,"
former Australian Prime Minister John Howard tells GPS. "We"ve always
seen it as being a question of public safety. And, on this issue, our
experience was that we did have gains in public safety. We did have
great gains in reduction of mass murder through the ban that we
produced...There was a lot of resistance inside sections of my own
political base. But with the experience of 17 years, even the most
cynical skeptical person would acknowledge that we have made a big
difference with that prohibition."

Well, if we look at the 18 years leading up to 1996, there were 13
gun massacres in Australia. Since the law has been passed, there has
not been a single one. Gun homicide, as we say, is down somewhere
between 59 and 80 percent. Did it change something about the politics?
Did you find that the people who were on the other side have come
I think probably some of them have. But there will always be a group
of people who, and quite understandably, argue, look, I enjoy
shooting. I enjoy hunting. I'm very careful. I'm very scrupulous about
keeping my weapons away from other people. I didn"t break the law. I
didn"t murder anybody. And, therefore, why should you interfere with my
freedom to be a happy hunter or a shooter? Now, I understand and respect
that point of view. But the sad fact is that it"s the ready
availability of guns that results in mass murder.

The Port Arthur massacre
in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Thirty five
people were killed and 21 wounded when a man with a history of violent
and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood[14] opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles.
The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence.[15]
Prime Minister John Howard,
then newly elected, immediately took the gun law proposals developed
from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence[16]
and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms
Agreement. The proposals
included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and
pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and
ownership controls.
Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property
without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare
Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million
through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[23]
The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly
semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action
shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.


that guns are more likely to cause harm to a possessor. which implies reducing possessrs reduces violence....
it's one of the easiest google searches ive done (search words = having gun home more likely) but here is some info....

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine
whether having a firearm in the home increases the
risk of a violent death in the home and whether
risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater
risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in
home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence
interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a
homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the
person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying
a suicide in the home was greater for males in
homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds
= 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9).
Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from
committed with a firearm than from one committed by
using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence
19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of
storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having
a gun
in the home was associated with an increased risk
of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death " and that of your spouse and children.
And it doesn"t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.
you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your
non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related
accident, suicide or homicide.
Furthermore, there is no credible
evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a
victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a
home break-in.
The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.
Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership.
What he found was sobering, to say the least.

read more on findings there great article

and more here

i could go on and on
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Fightingrebel 3 years ago
i agree with Raorm. If I knew you and you have a Facebook, id tell you to check out the link that i posted yesterday about gun laws. but i won't, and i can't. Any way, i believe that there shouldn't be any gun laws whatsoever. its too contracting, and it actually makes people but MORE guns than if there weren't any laws considering gun usage.
Posted by 3 years ago
Having a gun gives you controle of when and who you kill.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ian159 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shouldn't have copied and pasted from Wikipedia.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had some decent arguments in favor of background checks while con only succeeded in proving that guns shouldnt be banned. However the pro's copy pasting from wikipedia cost her sources and conduct
Vote Placed by Kwhite7298 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct -- con. Pro -- avoid statements such as "i could go on and on." It was pretty even until that point. Go on and on. This is a debate..............Spelling/grammar -- con................arguments -- tied. Pro had more arguments, but some were not valid (the common sense argument).......sources -- con. pro's source links did not work and I saw pro cite a blog. Don't cite a blog, judges pick up on that. Good debate by both sides!