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

Gun Control Laws Do More Harm Than Good

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: 1/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,756 times Debate No: 44715
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Hello everyone - this is my first debate so wish me luck :)

Today I am here to debate the topic of Gun Control Laws Doing More Harm Than Good.

I will be on the pro side of this argument.

If anyone accepts, here are three rules. First, the opposition and I are not allowed to rebut or bring in any mention of the comments, and secondly both of us will be kind and courteous. Lastly, each round a maximum of two points will be made. I prefer nice and long and thoughtful points to many but short points. Any amount of rebuttals can be made though.

Today I will begin by talking about something that many people will probably be thinking of. The Newtown shooting was a horrible and tragic event that I am sure all mourn and grieve for. However, I find it disappointing and shameful how some politicians are using this event to push their own agendas. First of all, gun control would not have worked here for two reasons. First off, the gun was taken from his mother, and his mother had a perfect legal right to own that gun. Secondly, Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun control laws today(1), yet they obviously didn't work.

It would be one thing if gun control actually worked. But it doesn't. First off, the gun control laws go against the Constitution. When President Obama was sworn into office, he said, "I do solemnly swear that I faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." (2). Unfortunately, it has been apparent that he has violated this Oath. The Second Amendment specifically states that every man has a right to bear arms. (3). Obama apparently doesn't care for this particular statement, and he has tried to get rid of our hard won freedom and rights. 94% of people in a poll on Baltimore said that they agreed to a group of gun right advocates suing about gun control laws that they say violate the Constitution (4).







Us citizens, cannot always do as we are asked. (Why are you focusing on Obama here? Obama is not the care taker of the gun). If you own a gun,of course, you should always put it in a safe place, it is your responsibility , but whoever said everyone listens. A survey ,(first link below), showed 31.1% say they don't feel safe with the fact that there is gun violence in schools. Now,don't even start with saying,"self defense". A recent study,(second link),proved that a 1995 study had fairly different results than the recent study. The 1995 study said over 2.5 million guns were used as self defense as the recent study said guns were used 0.00852% of the time for self defense.

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for responding.

Now let me say something first. When my opponent talked about me saying Obama, I just wanted to comment on how Obama is intent on getting stricter gun control laws. First of all, let me refresh you on the topic. I said that gun control laws do more harm than good. I know that people don't feel safe about violence in schools, and neither do I. But once again, I believe that gun control laws are not the answer to this. To answer this, I have a counter-plan. More on that in the next round.

My opponent failed to rebut any of my points, like how it goes against the Constitution. Nor did he/she rebut the point that Connecticut had some the strictest gun control laws, yet that didn't work.

Secondly, I am going to talk about 'self-defense'. This is relevant, and I am going to bring it up. My opponent talked about an outdated study talked about how 2.5 million guns were used for self defense(1). However, I found a recent study saying the same thing. 2.5 million people use their guns only for self defense. And of the 2.5 million using the gun to defend themselves, the majority of them use it only to scare them off(1). Less than 8% of the time does the citizen harm or kill the attacker. (1). Guns are a way to protect ourselves from murder and/or rape.

Now on to my own point. As I said before, guns are used for self defense. Once again, a recent study stated that 2.5 million gun users have their gun only for self defense. The main problem with gun control - criminals don't listen. Law abiding citizens who follow the law will get rid of their means for self defense if it is against the law. But the point is, the whole reason why criminals are criminals is because they break the LAW. Banning guns won't help anything. Think about it - during the Prohibition, alcohol was banned. During this period though, the rate of consumption of alcohol increased ten fold. People started making alcohol in their own backyards, and tons of black markets popped up. Think about what would happen should guns be banned. My friend's uncle is a gun maker, and he told me that people can't get enough of guns because they are afraid guns are going to banned. Do you think that a criminal would be more likely to break into a house that the owner might be able to defend or go in with the knowledge that they are unarmed and have no weapons?

A Harvard Study has actually found out that in countries such as Russia that completely banned guns, the murder rate is 20.54 when other countries that have no gun control laws like Finland the murder rate is 1.98 (2). Just imagine what would happen to the U.S's murder rate if we banned guns.



Samallama forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Ok so first of all op side has never posted the second round. I don't know whether this is on purpose or because she forgot about this debate. Nevertheless, I will continue on.

Ok so once again, op side has never rebutted any of my points. Not the one about self-defense, violating the Second Amendment, how criminals won't follow gun control law and they would invade houses without the fear of getting attacked.

Now I am going to say my counter-plan. If you're saying what could we do to prevent all of these mass shootings then I have an answer. First off, I read an article WSJ investigating the psychiatric motives behind these shooters. The main reason why these people go on these shootings is because of they want to get known and famous in the paper. They want their name to go down in history, and to be infamous. Whenever a potential killer reads about a shooter, it inspires them to go out and do it themselves, and join the 'cause'. The WSJ article talked about how to prevent these mass shootings. The article talked about how studies showed that all of these people have a sense of 'self-entitlement' and anger over not being recognized. The article said that to prevent these killings, newspapers and reporters should not even mention the name. That way, the motive for going and killing people would be stopped, and at the same time we would be reducing murder and the not violating the Second Amendment.

Thank you for this debate.



Samallama forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by josh1273436 6 years ago
I don't think Obama has much to do with this as many other political figures have tried to establish gun control laws but I do believe that it is completely the woman's fault about leaving the gun unattended. Note that Maryland is very democratic and many democrats favor gun control laws.
Posted by frankienstien 6 years ago
When it comes to numbers we can all find statistics that show our own point of view. The numbers and statistics mean little, when you look at the simple fact that the US Constitution enables everyone the right to bear arms. The Federal government violates the second amendment , and it allows states to as well. I guess I'm somewhat ok with it being left to the states, but not at the Federal level, and the states need to be watched for Constitutional abuses.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by McPherson 6 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 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: I mean - con forfeited. so..

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.