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

more guns mean more homicide, more gun control leads to less homicide

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 93964
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




more homicides correlated to more guns owed. here is a quote indicating that's what a literature review confirms, followed by a site with literature review conclusions. aside from a shoddy study or two or so, you can't find generalize consensus that find different conclusions.

Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions "is quite consistent " where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates."

this is true when you compare developed nations v developed nations. you can't compare undeveloped. and you also have to have variable control of things like poverty v homicide and guns v homicide

states with more gun control have less deaths than states with less gun control. following are some studies that indicate as much, including some literature reviews conclusing as much. you cant find literature review consensus finding different conclusions aside from a few shoddy studies.


It is stupid to think that disarming innocent people will somehow protect innocent people, it is already illegal for felons to own guns, so whatever felons do have guns are doing so illegally, and a gun ban won’t affect them very much. So felons are just as armed as before, except maybe more because when you ban something you create a whole new market for it, while law abiding citizens are disarmed. This is supposed to reduce crime how?

Liberals would point to Brittan having fewer homicides than we do, about 4 times less proportional to their population. But correlation is not causation, just because I can find a place where guns are illegal that has a lower crime rate than one where they are legal doesn’t prove anything because hat nation where guns are illegal might otherwise have a lower crime rate. You are also picking up the nation with the highest crime rate of those nations where guns are legal and comparing it to the nation with the lowest crime rate of those nations where guns are illegal.

You have to compare very nation where guns are legal to those where they are illegal, and compare times with higher gun ownership to those with less gun ownership in the same nation. Which gives you the following statistics,

Debate Round No. 1


I guess I can just skip con's rant about whether gun control is a good idea. the only thing being debated are the two points in the title.

so con's one graph that he found somewhere on the internet beats the scientific consensus? I cited literature reviews, anyone can do their own especially if you do a journal database search at a library or university. if your position were true, youd be able to find support for your position academically. as it sits, you have almost nothing. another point against con, as previously noted, you have to compare developed countries against each other.... con includes a ton of rogue countries. if you aren't comparing apples to apples what's the point? as to cons other graph, it's an outlier. just because guns increased and homicide decreased doesn't mean the two aren't linked. correlation doesn't prove causation. ive got a ton of evidence that the two are linked however and bottomline, con has nothing.


The coorelatio is consistent, if I fond that feeding people dog poor led to them being sick, and the more dog poop they ate the sicker they got, I would have a case to say that eating dog poop maes you sick. Acedemia doesn't apply here, facts are facts and the higher gu ownership there is the less crime there is, this is why Switzerland obligates its citizens to own guns, and they have 52 homicides annualy total.
Now let's assume a hypothetical scenario, let';s say guns are illegal. So what? Feon are al;ready banned from owning guns, so banning guns for everyone won't really affect them much, they wre already violating the law. So now not only do yu have a criminal population which is just as armed as before, and a civilian population which is now unarmed, but you also have created a new black market for guns. This is supposed to reduce crime how? Criminals are just as armed as before, so crime shouldn't chnge much.
And if you honestly believe that ilegalising guns will do anything but increase crime, go see what happened when we banned alcohaul, crime went up and the black market became a ooming buisness.

Debate Round No. 2


yes facts are facts. you cant find scientific support for your position. i can find effective consensus.

again this isn't a debate about specific gun controls so i dont know why you are arguing about it.


Science doesn't have anything to do with this, the fact is Switzerland has a gun ownership rateof 29%, and only 52 homicides annualy, how does this work for your side of the debate?
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by WKOJ 2 years ago
I hope my RFD was explained good! If anyone has any questions, message me!
Posted by brontoraptor 2 years ago
Looks like we're gonna have to get rid of pokemon go then. ;-)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by WKOJ 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that the win goes to con. Con was able to make very strong arguments that made very strong rebuttals towards any hinting of effective gun control by pro. Something very wrong with the arguments of pro was that he laid out all the statistics and source but they could have been and were easily refuted with stronger pieces of evidence. Something else wrong was pro relied too much on his sources and didn't make more diverse arguments. Con had a great deal of support on his side with the use of examples from percentages and annual murder rates and the graphs.