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

There should be little gun control in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,188 times Debate No: 66309
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Anyone who wishes to accept must have a minimum of 5 debates. If anyone with less than 5 debates accept, it is an automatic loss. Otherwise, you may accept. However, you must go by the following guidelines.

These are common guidelines, along with some new ones.

1) No semantics. If you are unsure about a word, you must ask for its definition.

2) No plagiarism; You can not copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.

3) Images, that are supposedly in favor of your side, must be proven accurate.

4) This debate must be taken seriously. A few minor jokes in between are fine, but that is it.

5) First round is for acceptance only.

Failure to follow these rules will result in an automatic loss.


Hello RESEARCHPreacher! Interesting debate, thank you for putting it up. I will argue against having little gun control in the US, or similarly, the US adopting more gun control.
Debate Round No. 1


I will be jumping straight to it.

C1) The true outcome of gun control

Many favor gun control because they assume it will change the amount of deaths that may occur over all. If we were to adopt more gun control, part of that would be collecting guns from the people in the U.S. Now, we know that citizens (Just go by them as citizens) choose to follow the laws, while criminals choose not to. So, if the U.S. adopted more gun control, the citizens, as they choose to follow the laws, will typically choose to turn their guns in. However, the criminals, as they choose not to follow the laws, can come up with many ideas to be able to still hold on to their weapons, such as disguise. So, the following would be the outcomes:

- The citizens will turn their guns in and will not have as efficent of a defense.

- Lots of the criminals would still be holding on to their guns, which gives them an advantage when, say, breaking into houses to steal or going after others.

These outcomes are the complete opposite to what "many" want.

C2) Comparing crime rates with gun ownership

The graph above[1] compares gun ownership with crime rates. As you can see, as the amount of people who owned guns increased, the crime rates drastically went down.

Look at Chicago, which in 1982 passed a ban on all handguns except for those registered with the city before the ban was enacted[1].

Once, the handgun ban took effect, but only for a short amount of time. After that, the crime rates began further up until they realized that the handgun ban was not doing them any good.

Take a look at [2]. The image is too large to fit. This is the majority of the WORLD, so this even further proves that gun control should be little. It shows that the more people own firearms in a country, the smaller the crime rates are.

I now return the floor to pro. I would like to see whether or not he will be able to put a dispute on my arguments. Good luck to my opponent!





Rebuttal to C1
Other countries, like Austrailia and Denmark have banned guns and have been very successful. The often-claim of pro-gun rights is that gun control cannot be done, or cannot take guns from criminals. However, other countries have implimented gun control and have gotten the same results as what "many" want.

I do not suggest the mass confiscation of guns. You've shown yourself why the idea is impractical, and I can think of a few reasons myself. Instead, I suggest the slow phase out of guns, by restricting gun usage until it is impractcal to own one, and eventually outlawing them.

Anyway, on the whole C1 is a strawman, and factually unimportant. We're not playing with hypotheticals, here.

Rebuttal to C2
Before going into any of these pieces of information, I want to note that they are EXTREMELY biased. They do not come from informational sources, but pro-gun sources.

Graph 1, Crime Vs. Guns
According to non-biased sources like, the violent crime in the US between '70 and '95 has NOT remained static like your graph suggests. It more than doubles. Your graph is certainly inaccurate. As should be expected, the gun ownership doubles as well. This suggests that higher gun ownership is coorelated to higher crime rate.

Yes, it's true that from '70 to '10 that the crime rate has dropped. However, the graph shows pretty definitely and pretty obviously that guns had nothing to do with it. That random drop at '95 is the exact opposite of a coorelation, since the gun rate doesn't follow it.

Graph 2, Portion of Chicago Murders Committed with Handguns
The main claim here is that the banning of guns did not help against murders committed with handguns. But that is not what the graph shows, since the rate could have been even higher if the ban was not implimented.

Either way, it is an interesting piece of information, and certainly aids your side. However, I do not believe in it's legitimacy. I invoke rule #3, prove it's accuracy. Unbiased sources can do it for me. I do not believe 80% of murders in Chicago are done by handguns, especially since the source contradicts this when it says most murders are not gun related.

Graph 3, International Firearm Ownership and Homicides
The first thing to note right away is that this graph is VERY general. Comparing 1st world countries to 3rd world countries is useless. The graph is random information.

The second thing to note is that there is no coorelation. Countries on the far left AND far right have low homicide rates. There are random spikes, as well as lows, in the middle. I don't see what you're trying to prove with this graph.

Let's look at some of the more important parts. For example, look on the far left where the US has a firearm homicide rate several times higher than the countries it's beside. Finland has half as many guns per person, but 1/6 the firearm homicide rate. Canada has a tiny fraction the firearm homicide rate. The US has too many guns, and this graph shows it well.

In summary:
This is the usual case of "These graphs that are in line with my opinion prove my opinion". Graph 1 is far from correct, Graph 2 is insignificant and untrustworthy, Graph 3 is very general, and does not support your side.

I want to see a graph that negatively relates crime rate to gun ownership. Similar to graph 1, but accurate and unbiased. Nobody produces this, because it's not true, and here's why:

C1: The First World and Gun Usage
The 36 countries that IMF considers advanced
List of countries by gun ownership
List of countries by crime rate
All are unbiased sources, and have nothing to do with eachother. Only considering the 36 countries that are "developed", here's a graph I made of gun ownership to crime rate.

Shows for 36 countries that are "developed" by the IWF. Does not include Hong Kong, or the UK, neither of which are expected to be outliers. Notes 5 of the outlying countries.

There's several things to get from this picture:
-Once again, the US just has too many guns, and can stand to lose some.
-The US is one of the least safest developed countries, and has a murder rate that rivals countries much poorer than it.
-Most developed countries live in a "pocket". Less than 40 guns per 100 people, less than 2 murders per 100,000 people.

And this is what we should interpret from those important points:
-Even more guns is the last thing we need.
-The reason why the US's murder rate is so high is solely because the gun ownership is so high.
-There is no reason why the US could not fit into the "pocket". We just have to give up our guns first. The result would be a lower murder rate. This is shown by many countries similar to the US.

Here is a similar graph, but only for Newsworld's "Top 20 countries", not including the US:
Shows for 20 countries that are rated "World's best countries" by Newsweek in 2010. Does not include the United states, since it is an outlier.

This graph is a little harder, but here's what we can see from it:
-There is a weak, but positive coorelation between gun ownership and murder rate.

However, the important fact is that:
-The coorelation between gun ownership and murder rate is certainly not negative, meaning, on average, if you live in a "top 20" country, arming everyone will not protect you from being murdered.

That is my debate for now. If there's anything to take from it, it's that some gun control just might be exactly what the US needs. Less gun control is pretty obviously what it does not need.
Debate Round No. 2


RESEARCHPreacher forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


RESEARCHPreacher forfeited this round.


Kaynex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


RESEARCHPreacher forfeited this round.


Kaynex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.