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

American Gun Control

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 826 times Debate No: 86156
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Gun control, defined as the banning of fire arms, is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment clearly states that it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they inserted this into the Bill of Rights. We need to be able to legally defend ourselves.
People who feel that they are above the law, essentially criminals, will go to any means to see their goals come to pass. That could mean obtaining guns on the Black Market, or finding their own means of violence. Stabbings, beatings, and bombs would simply become more common. There are already laws set in place to control violence, and if criminals don't follow these, it would be ridiculous to believe that they would follow the new potential laws.


First i would like to thank my opponent for the debate

Her definition is wrong of gun control however. But i will accept it since i do want to debate a Gun Ban

I accept this debate

Debate Round No. 1


Gun control can be defined in many different ways. Background checks, banning automatic or semi-automatic guns, or the banning of guns altogether all fit under the range. I decided to argue to banning fire arms to make the topic more specific, and that is a perfectly valid argument.

Anyway, thank you very much for accepting the debate.

As Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association's vice-president once eloquently said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." While this may be a bit of an exaggeration, his argument certainly has a good point. Police carry weapons, but when they are minutes away at a station or across town, the criminals come out of nowhere fast. In a gun-free zone, or a world without easily accessible firearms due to heavy restrictions, the few minutes it takes for the police to reach the destination, lives could be lost.

Russia has some of the tightest restrictions in the world when it comes to gun control. People only own nine guns per 100 people in Russia, while America has close to 100 guns per 100 people. Yet, in 2009, Russia had 21,603 murders and America had 13,636 (see link). Especially considering that America is approximately three times more populous than Russia, it is safe to say that guns to not have as much correlation to violence as some previously thought. Tightening gun control laws in America would most likely have a similar effect, and we could unfortunately see a spike in the murder rates. This is why gun control laws should stay just the way they are, or if anything, even be loosened.


I would like to thank my opponent for the debate. My side will argue that a Gun Ban will save lives and be better for citizens. We wont be arguing for unconstutionality however.

1. It wouldnt affect personal defense situations

People using guns for personal safety is extremely rare. A study recently conducted that out of the thousands of gun murders only .1 percent of those killings were cases where self defense was being used. A few years ago the Department of Justice: Bureau of Statistics released that in between the years of 2007-2011 the chances of guns being used in self defense were .8 percent

That means that since the recent study the chances of using a gun for self defense has dropped down .7 percent in recent years.

The case for personal defense has no impact since the amount of cases of personal defense are far outnumbered by the cases of guns being used for crimes and murders

2. Sucides would be reduced

In a 2010 study over 38,000 americans committed suicide. What was their weapon of choice? Over half of the victims used guns. Guns are painless and quick. Many americans do not commit suicide because they are afraid. Now of course my opponent will claim that people who want to commit suicide do it with any option. Actually if there is no gun then the percentage of killing themselves reduce drastically. For Example using a knife to slit your throat. If you want to commit suicide with that instrument than you only have a 70 percent chance to kill yourself. Unfortuantley with a gun its over 99 percent. Also the fact remains that if your household has a gun you or your family have more than a 400 perent chance to commit suicide. 16,857 fire arm deaths in states with low gun control and 4,578 in high control areas. Not only this but the sucide rates for non firearm deaths stayed approxiamitley the same at 9000.

3. Accidents

A gun is something that is extremely dangerous. One accidental click of the trigger and you could maim,kill or seriously hurt someone in the vicinity of that shot.

Childhood deaths are in the hundreds because parents dont know where the gun is at or if its loaded. Many parents load their guns because they fear they dont have time not to have the clip already in the gun. Because of this childhood deaths are simply the norm. Not only that but the amount of gun accidents is set to overpass the amount of automobile accidents in the near future.

4. Gun Bans Work

An interesting arguement from conservatives is that Chicago is the worst place in the country and its because of gun control. However this is very misleading and is far from the truth.

If you scroll down in this article you will see 2 graphs. The first is the obvious one the conservatives are pointing at. Its death and injuries past January 2013. However if you scroll down further you find the graph that does the real talking. Its mass shootings deaths and injuries. As you can see the MASS majority of these shootings happen in the south the most dangerous one being Renegade mountain, Tenessee.

Back to you Con


Debate Round No. 2


Self defense cases may have dropped in recent years, but I believe this has something to do with what the average person and jury believes to be a 'justifiable homicide.' The very definition of self defense seems to be changing. When a police officer shoots back at a criminal, people protest in the streets for days, causing more damage and starting more violence than what they were protesting about to begin with. One example of this would be of Ferguson, Missouri, after the death of Michael Brown. Less and less people feel comfortable with picking up a gun to defend themselves, because in the end it may be futile, and they could go to jail for it.

Maybe I'm just not accurately reading your statistics on suicide, or maybe they are simply misleading. Committing suicide, with either a gun or a knife, can be fatal. Whether one chooses for the attempt to be fatal or to inflict pain is what counts. Usually using a knife means that the victim is not yet ready to take their own life. As for fire arm deaths in low gun control versus high gun control states, of course low gun control state rates will be higher. Guns are more accessible. But that does not mean the suicide rate is higher overall. People will just be forced to use different, more painful, drawn out methods, like overdosing or repeated cutting. In fact, Japan has some of the world's toughest gun control laws, and yet they still see double the amount of suicides as the U.S.A. does.

According to the CDC, unintentional firearm deaths are ranked as ninth and tenth cause for unintentional injury deaths from age groups 5-9 and 10-14 respectively in 2013. For everybody else, unintentional firearm deaths does not even make top ten. Yes, guns are dangerous. There is no denying that. But in the hands of a child, or a careless parent, most everything can become a lethal danger. Plastic bags, blankets, and the strings that adjust blinds, all fit into this category. I'm certainly not seeing a push for restrictions on baby blankets because of its potential smothering capabilities. A gun doesn't kill people- people kill people.

In response to the article from the Washington Post, the author actually admits to the second graph, its main source of argument, being biased. "The highest ratio of killings to population happened at the Renegade Mountain resort in Tennessee, due to an incident in which four people were killed -- in a place with about 40 permanent residents. Since large-scale shootings in very small places skew the scale..." Chicago, with it's tight gun control laws, still continues to have the highest crime rate, and its population does not excuse it. New York City has nearly four times the amount of people, and Los Angeles twice as much, yet their crime rates are still lower. America is not only the source of example like this: Russia has similar problems, as I cited in the last round.

Overall, tracing the real source of the problem (and finding accurate, unbiased sources) prove that gun control restrictions simply do not work. Unfortunately most people choose to look at the gun control issue with face value only, without stopping to check the facts and use deductive reasoning, but that is a matter for another time.

Thank you for taking up this challenge. I appreciate that you took the time to respond.



-My opponent's rebuttal of the self defense dropping case is almost completely anecdotal. She just explains why she thinks thats the reason self defense cases have gone down. Because she lists no other factual reason then her rebuttal has no case

-My opponent fails to realize that suicide rates in high control states are LOWER than low gun control states no matter what item is being used. So this rebuttal by my opponent also has no effect. Her arguement about Japan also has no effect because ive proven states with low gun control have higher sucide rates across the board

-Untentional firearm accidents are high for children and are a threat to many adults as well. A gun ban would eliminate these problems. I did not say that gun accidents were somehow killing everyone but instead i was making the case that these things happena and would not happen

-The article does not say its biased. Its merely looking at mass shootings. When you look at random gun shootings everyone likes to blame Chicago. What people do not understand is that there are gangs that try to kill each other all the time. However looking at the graph the area where mass shootings happen is the south.

-My opponents last remark is that gun control doesnt work. However i have proved that again and again having guns creates problems such as accidents, sucidies and does not affect defense situations. Con has not refuted my claims well and therefore has lost

Even though my opponent had arguements in round 1 i still feel it is unethical to add new arguements. Its been a great debate Con even though it was cut short to 3 rounds!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Hayd 2 years ago
I'll be voting on this soon
Posted by Reformist 2 years ago
In DDO we usually have a unsaid but accepted belief that unless specfied you should not add new arguements in the final round. But that does not matter
Posted by Sarah314 2 years ago
Hey, so Reformist- I'm sorry if I did something wrong...You mentioned some formatting issues about the three rounds? This was my first debate, so I wasn't sure if there was a specific way I was supposed to do it. But thank you for accepting, this was fun!
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 2 years ago
Gun bans DO NOT work. The most violent crime cities in America have the strictest gun bans. Statistical fact.
Posted by Reformist 2 years ago
They may be biased but you probably watch biased media as well!
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
No, they're not. They have been constantly disproved by many credible sources. Huffington post is ultra liberal, and so is Washington post. That's like saying you trust Buzzfeed to deliver you correct information.
Posted by Reformist 2 years ago
Lol bball

Yes they are
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
Washington and huffington post are not credible sources.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Obvious win for Pro