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

We should relax restrictions on guns

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,678 times Debate No: 33963
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Here are some things I agree with:
1. Universal background checks
2. The prevention of allowing guns in the hands of people with certain mental health conditions. Although we cant stop them, I agree that they shouldn't have guns as easily as others.
3. People kill people, not guns. If everyone was armed, there would be less crime because nobody would want to commit crime against an armed person.
4. There should be armed policemen at every school, he can stop the killer before he even kills any innocent lives.

With that being said, gun restrictions can make everything worse because it would create a black market which would kill more people. The same thing happened with alcohol, marijuana, and prostitution. If there is something that people want, they will get it. Criminals don't follow laws, to anyone who simply says that it would make it harder for them to get it: this may be slightly true, but reality is they will find a way.

For example, Switzerland has a population 97% that owns firearms yet they have the lowest crime rate in the world. Coincidence? Nope, there is a very low crime rate because no one wants to commit crime if they risk at being shot.


no they must be relaxed.
Debate Round No. 1


Are you saying they should or should not be relaxed? I'm confused, and please explain why this is a debate.


Sorry it shoud have been "they must not be relaxed" I apologize for the mistake.

I would start my argument by defining gun.

1.a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance.
2.any device for shooting something under pressure.

So I have defined what is a gun.

I would say that only the police,army,etc should be allowed to own guns.because of the recent attacks due to guns
eg.the sandy hook school shooting.

And i don't understand why do certain citizens of America need to own guns,since intelligence agencies such as
FBI, CIA, Pentagon are experts to crack down the crimes which are related to guns and many others.

the above image is also the proof why gun rights should not be relaxed.

I must say that there is no need of people using guns,if someone harasses a person and the person gets very angry and that person has a gun ,he may shoot the person who has harrased him and may haveto face some serious punishment.

therfore i think there is no need people using guns.

Debate Round No. 2


You make a very intelligent and point-full case, the USA does have a very large crime problem. But here is why, the morals and handling of crime are changing. Back in the 1800's, nearly everyone owned guns and the crime rate was very low. Switzerland has a gun ownership rate of 97% and yet the lowest crime rate, there are hardly any murders or mass shootings because no one would want to have the risk of being murdered themselves by an armed, defensive citizen. They also have a good economy and mental health system, this may need to be a time where the USA should follow an example from a foreign power (sad but true).

Also I've noticed that you listed Israel as one of the lowest crime rating nations in the world, this is because nearly everyone owns a gun in that country. They also have compulsory military service (conscription) for each citizen, which teaches them on how to use guns correctly and respect them.

I'm not saying this is how it should be in America, but each citizen should at least learn the do's and dont's when it comes to gun ownership (perhaps in school). That way, Americans can live crime-free AND live by the civil liberties they were given. It's a logical compromise, we don't have to give up either the right to life or liberty.

Which brings me to my last lecture, about the school and movie theater shootings. Here's the point, it's tragic and should never have to happen again. A good plan would be to put an armed security guard at each school instead of imposing the removal of guns. And if people somehow can't get a gun via the black market, they will try and use knives or scissors. People will murder if they have the intention to no matter what they use, but that's why we need to prevent this by giving better mental health programs.

From what it seems, gun control is inevitable in USA. But until the government realizes that we don't have a "gun problem" but we actually have an "idiot problem", organized crime will continue to rise and public services (ie police) won't be available to prevent the next school shooting.

It's up to you, the people reading this debate, to decide what's more responsible.


Thank you for posting such a thoughtful argument.

As you said

1. Back in the 1800's, nearly everyone owned guns and the crime rate was very low:-

So in the past the crime rate was very low ,but now it has increased sandyhook school shooting itself is an example.

Following is the proof that gun violence has increased:-

1.More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country (USA).

2. More than 30 people are shot and murdered each day.

3.1/2 of them are between the ages of 18 and 35.

4.1/3 of them are under the age of 20.

5.Homicide is the second leading cause of death among 15-24 year-olds.

2.I'm not saying this is how it should be in America, but each citizen should at least learn the do's and dont's when it comes to gun ownership (perhaps in school). That way, Americans can live crime-free AND live by the civil liberties they were given. It's a logical compromise, we don't have to give up either the right to life or liberty.:-

But some Americans not all, don't learn to live crime-free if anyone has hurt them they try to kill them.It has been said so many times not to take law in your hand,there are so many courts to give right justice but they don't learn, so for such people if we relax the restrictions they will become stronger and try to kill more people for their good.

Thousands of people are killed intentionally or accidentally with guns each year. Some are the results of misplaced curiosity, while others are cases where the gun owner used poor gun handling procedures. Others tragically are the result of a poorly chosen target. Regardless of the reason behind these accidental deaths, had the gun been absent from the equation, the result would likely have been different. The same is true for homicide cases as without a gun, killing someone would have been far more difficult than pulling the trigger.

By relaxing restrictions on guns it can easily turn a fist fight into a murder case.

Debate Round No. 3


Your numbers and statistics are correct, USA has countless cases of gun-related homicide and accidents related to poor handling procedures. But sometimes I wonder, why don't people die from mishandling knives as much as guns? And I'm sure that automobiles are more dangerous than guns, but why don't we have "car control" also? We do in a way, things that people use intelligently are either taught on how to use correctly or it's something they grew up with their whole life.

Which brings me to a whole other argument, why the government wants to implement gun control. Countries like the USSR, Nazi Germany, China, Nicaragua, and Cambodia all had gun control right before many people were exterminated.

This may be far fetched but how do we know the same thing isn't happening here on our soil? And also the school shootings are exactly why we need to teach people to use guns correctly AND put armed police officers in the schools. If this happens, the killer can probably be stopped before killing anyone. If someone had to take the time to call 911 and get the police to the school, 30+ people may be already dead.

And I can't stress more that without guns, people would use knives or any other dangerous object. It's not an object issue, it's more of a moral issue.

And your right, fist fights would be murder cases because they wouldn't have any guns to fight with. So, they just use their fists.


I completley disagree with you.

This is not a debate on car issue,etc .But only on guns.

Now i start my argument.

As you have said "put armed police officers in the schools":-

It is not possible to put EACH AND EVERY armed police officers in schools since the number of schools is more than the number of police officers in the country, and even how many police officers will be able to be vigilant for the complete 24 hours ,even they require some break and during the break time if someone comes and kills anyone who knows a life is lost and if there would have been a law to not to own guns there would have been no such killing, and bu relaxing gun control we are adding more petrol to fire.

And by relaxing gun control we would invite the following problems:-

        • More killings .

        • More terrorism .

        • A faith of disbelief among the foreigners.

        • Very low reputation for U.S.A.

1.More killings:-

By more killings I mean to say that if we relax gun control more goons would be encouraged to buy guns and to cause violence among the people of America and disturbance because of which many citizens would suicide and
our poulation would gilde down enormously.

2. More terrorism by our own terrorists/goons:-

By relaxing restrictions on guns we would be opening the doors for more terrorist attacks on USA and since 2010
have been 4 terrorist attacks and by relaxing the restrictions on guns, America would become the centre would
become the hub for terrorism and our prestige in the world as a superpower would be dashed.

3. A faith of disbelief among the foreigners:-

If we would relax the restrictions there would be more terrorist attacks day by day and the there would be a feeling of disbelief among the foreign countries that we will not be able to protect their ambassadors and they would call them back and our economy will also be on the downturn since we would not be able to protect the industries/commercial offices of the foreign countries.

4. Very low reputation for U.S.A:-

Since i had said our prestige would be dashed and our economic conditions would be on the downturn and therefore it would be better if we would not relax restrictions on guns.
Debate Round No. 4


For my argument this round, I want to ask you some questions. Can you prove to us that there are more schools than police officers? (by the way each town has an average of 3-5 schools and each police station or barracks should have A LOT more than that). Isn't it also not possible to keep guns out of the hands of every single crazed citizen? What type of schools keep their kids for 24 hours? If there were no police in the school, wouldn't a lot more people be shot because they would have to take the time to call 911?

Now for the reasons why there are so many shootings (for the 3rd time actually). Newtown, VA tech, Aurora, and many more happened because of the mental illness system in this country. That's what we need to regulate, suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death in children ages 15-24 and nearly 20% of teens are clinically depressed. This needs to end, and I'm sure that regulating guns would not solve that issue. Again, if someone really wanted to do a mass killing they wouldn't even need guns.

Before 9/11 and these mass shootings, restriction on guns were as relatively low as people like me want them to be. Have you seen mass shootings when nearly everyone owned a gun? No, it started with the increase in other crimes which led to murder in many cases. That's how it starts, we need to teach young children to respect guns as much as alcohol or cars. Banning objects wont do any good. Oh, and please cite some sources for the information you've been getting with terrorist attacks in 2010.


I leave it to the voters now.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dsvstheworld 5 years ago
I cant vote yet, but as a Police Officer in a large violent city I will say that if you have relaxed gun laws every fender bender, every small dispute has the potential to turn deadly. Human beings are stupid creatures, people will run you off the road if you dont use your blinker, imagine what they would do if you took their parking space? Or bumped into them in the grocery line. A true free country is one which people dont feel the need to walk around with guns, not one which people do.

And as a world traveler being to over 20 countries so far I will tell you that USA is far more violent than most everywhere else. Spend some time in western Europe. Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 5 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a huge victory for Pro. Con deserves a huge conduct loss for the 1st round, showing a misunderstanding of the topic and making Pro waste a round. Spelling and grammar goes hands down to Pro. As for convincing arguments, Con arguments were rather weak and brief and his refutations did not really refute Pro's arguments. Pro, on the other hand, had much better reasoning with his arguments. Sources were tied between Pro and Con.
Vote Placed by TheDarkMuffin 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con hardly even refuted Pro's argument. Even then, Con was very fallacious in doing so. It's really a landslide, here.