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

there should be more gun regulation

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  
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: 6/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 315 times Debate No: 77055
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




more gun regulation should exist.

background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here.

the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons.

here are two case studies on reducing guns:

japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate.

australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year.

also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like "gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.


I believe there shouldn't be more gun regulation. First of all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Taking guns away or controling guns is just going to cause people to sneak around and do it, or find another way to kill people. Also the second ammendment says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." People should have a right to have guns.
Debate Round No. 1


con just restates points i responded to without responding to what i posted already as responses.

you say they will just find another way to kill. but you didn't respond to the study that says the more guns there are, the more overall homicide there is. that means people don't just find alternative ways.

you say they will sneak around to do it. this couldn't be true either, cause if they did there would be just as much homicide with fewer guns. plus it's common sense not everyone will be a black hoodie and go get a gun when denied one. con is arguing like we should get rid of crime laws, cause some crime will occur. you didn't respond to this, you just restated what i responded to.

also, im not necessarily saying we take guns way, we should at least have background checks. this doesn't infringe on the second amendment. just like we have certain types of speech that can't be done per the first amendment.... there are just reasonable restrictions.


No, I didn't restate what you said. And yes people WILL illegally get guns no matter how much reguation there is. I don't care what you say, it will happen.
Debate Round No. 2


you did repeat. i posted points about people just finding alternative ways to kill and getting guns on the black market, and you just ignored the responses i gave and reiterated those argument i responded to.

con says people will just get guns illegally. if more guns means more homicide, doesn't that mean some would be criminals are not getting guns illegally? cause homicide would be the same if what con said was true.

but back to teh resolution. background checks for all, would be more regulation. do 100% of would be criminals just go get one on the black market? checks would have zero percent effect, not stopping one person? this by common sense standards is absurd. those kinds of all or nothign statements are usually bunk. it's like saying crime laws have no effect, and 100% of would be criminals will just commit crimes anyway. at least if he admitted that some would be swayed, it'd have a better sensibility to it, but then that might make him need to concede the debate. but even if he admitted it stopped some, this would be like saying we shouldn't have crime law because some people will commit crime.
please address these crime analogies. and state for the record, if you think it, that 100% of would be criminals just go get one on the black market. id think actually making the statement would give one pause.


samanthan9 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro, because Con forfeited the last round. Arguments to Pro, because Con never refuted any of Pro's arguments, and later dropped all of them by simply stating "I don't care what you say, it will happen." Responding with "I don't care what you say" in a debate is a totally useless response, as it doesn't not actually refute any arguments. Since Pro made arguments that Con never refuted, arguments to Pro. Sources were only used by Pro.