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

Gun Control

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: 1/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 886 times Debate No: 85715
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Although the government is leaning towards stricter gun control to decrease armed criminal activity, I believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed because it is unconstitutional, it will backfire and promote criminal activity as a whole, and criminals will always find a way to obtain guns.


insufficiently controlled gun ownership is objectively bad for our society, and objectively unhealthy for the weapon owner. A gun owner is 300% more likely to commit suicide[1] than a non gun owner. Suicide by the way is the 2nd leading cause of death for people under age 35[2]. Suicide is the number one gun related killer and it's a huge one! But even School shootings are far from uncommon, there where more than 45 school shootings in 2015 alone[3] even if you don't hear about them in the news everyday.

So, con, The numbers are objectively bad... The claim that guns protect you from criminals at all is debatable[4] ... But con, honestly, above any of this, The united states, we, the people, are not a peace loving people. We are not a peaceful society at all, we can't even have a sale on laptop computers with out some one getting hurt every year[5]. And finally what happens when add guns to potentially every minor conflict Americans have with each other on the daily basis? This happens:


Debate Round No. 1


On December 15, 1791, the first ten amendments were ratified to form the Bill of Rights in order to secure the freedom and security of the American people. The second amendment states: 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. The intent of this amendment is commonly mistaken however. Many people in favor of gun control believe that this amendment was passed in order to secure an American's right to bear arms, and thus it would be possible to modify it as other amendments have been. However, that is not the case with this extremely well formulated amendment. The second amendment states that an American Citizen's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This means that not only does this amendment secure an American's right to bear arms, but it also, in itself, keeps this amendment from being regulated or modified. This was not a mistake. The founding fathers knew the consequences that would arise if the United States government were to strip its citizens of their weapons. George Mason, co-author of the second amendment, said in a speech, "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."(Bailey).
Many people in favor of gun control reason that stricter gun control will decrease crime rates and save the lives of many people. However, enforcing stricter gun control will have the complete opposite effect, causing law abiding citizens to be defenseless and therefore encouraging crime by making it much safer for the criminals. In fact, in the United States, "guns actually save more lives than they take" (GOA). Firearms account for only 30,000 deaths by either suicides, homicides, or accidents each year. On the contrary, guns are used 2.5 million times for self defense. Guns are also used over 200,000 times a year by women in order to defend themselves from rape. Also, in a poll, "3/5 felons say that a criminal is not going to mess with an armed victim" (Gun Facts). If these innocent American citizens are stripped of their constitutional right to bear arms, they will be defenseless when confronted by a criminal, and thus, criminal activity would be encouraged.
Another fatal flaw in our government's plan to keep criminals unarmed is the black market. For example, even though marijuana is illegal in many states, people still find ways to obtain it through the black market. According to ATF (bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms) agent Jay Wachtel "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes" (Noyes). This means that outlawing the buying and selling of guns will only create a short hurdle between criminals and their weapons, but in turn will leave all law abiding citizens defenseless.

Bailey, Bill. "The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment." The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers Project, 5 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
GOA. "Just For Skeptics." Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives. GOA, 16 Oct. 2008. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
"Guns in America | Facts and Statistics about Firearms in the USA." Guns in America | Facts and Statistics about Firearms in the USA. Vici Media. Web. 20 Jan. 2016.
Noyes, Dan. "How Criminals Get Guns." PBS. PBS, 2014. Web. 20 Jan. 2016.


What is OBJECTIVELY TRUE, is that Gun ownership is harmful to the society at large and to the individual gun owner, I believe I have made this case through well reasoned sources and made a sound statistical case as such, In reply Con has provided ideological ramblings devoid of meaningful data to support them. Regarding the 2-Million defensive gun uses statistics:
" First, there is the social desirability bias. Respondents will falsely claim that their gun has been used for its intended purpose—to ward off a criminal—in order to validate their initial purchase. A respondent may also exaggerate facts to appear heroic to the interviewer.

Second, there’s the problem of gun owners responding strategically. Given that there are around 3 million members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States, ostensibly all aware of the debate surrounding defensive gun use, Hemenway suggested that some gun advocates will lie to help bias estimates upwards by either blatantly fabricating incidents or embellishing situations that should not actually qualify as defensive gun use.

Third is the risk of false positives from “telescoping,” where respondents may recall an actual self-defense use that is outside the question’s time frame. We know that telescoping problems produce substantial biases in defensive gun use estimates because the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the gold standard of criminal victimization surveys, explicitly catalogs and corrects for it." -"How To Manufacture A Statistic",

In regards to Con's 2nd amendment argument I just frankly don't care. I don't care what your ideology is, American society is NOTHING like it was when the constitution was written, we are primarily urban where we where once primarily rural; we are primarily federal where we where once primarily state governed. The gun is nothing like it was when the constitution was written either, An expert shot could put 3 rounds out of a musket in a minute, an AR-15 can put out 30 rounds in a few seconds. Things change. I believe I have adequately provided a reasoned response with verifiable sources establishing that Gun ownership is unhealthy for individuals and detrimental to society, and at least, gun controls should be put in place to reduce the risks of death.

Debate Round No. 2


Two hundred twenty and five years ago, our country's founders put in place an amendment that guaranteed that the American Citizen's right to bear arms would not be infringed. And now, the United States government is doing just that. Gun control is becoming more common and strict in many states. This action by the United States government is unconstitutional and is having the complete opposite effect that they hoped for. Criminals are still getting their hands on guns from the black market, while law abiding American Citizens are left defenseless against the criminals now that they are without their greatest threat, the armed victim. This is not a path that our country should continue down. It was foreseen by our founders and now it is coming true. Something must change, or we will be back where we started before we became a nation.

1700's or not, taking away our arms is one step closer to the totalitarian communist government that we as a nation have fought so hard to avoid. In World War II we showed the world the power of the United States by ending the Nazi Regime, and at the end of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan took a stand and showed the world the fault in communism and dictatorship. If the United States government takes our guns away, they will be no better than Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, and we will surely end up as a communist country once their greatest threat is taken care of, that threat being people brave and strong enough to take up arms against a government that they know to be corrupt.

The United States may be a democracy now, but with the actions of our government lately, it is apparent that they are ready for a change.

Thank you for accepting this debate. And no matter the results, I am just glad that both of our stances can be heard thanks to our freedom of speech ensured by the 1st amendment, but if the government is allowed to strip us of our 2 amendment, take advantage of your freedom of speech, because the way our country is heading, it too will be gone in time.



The idea that some some how owning a civilian model Ar-15 will stop government tyranny is absolutely ridiculous. Ask your self how many imaginary communist governments have Con's guns over thrown? Where is the long history of Tyrants being over thrown thanks to the 2nd amendment.. In the mean time people are dying... every day, with out fail, People die.. That is what is at stake, There is no evidence of any Stalin waiting in the wings; This debate is conclusive, poorly regulated firearms are harmful to our society, there fore Vote for pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by lbobbers 2 years ago
I am against gun control. Look at our neighbors in Mexico, guns are outlawed and people cannot defend themselves from powerful drug cartels. If we put forward gun control here also, all criminals will still have access to firearms while it makes our citizens a sitting duck.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: LostintheEcho1498// Mod action: Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: I give conduct to Con for Pro's overall lack of decorum and sources go to neither as both presented quality sources. I give argument to neither, as both presented the same argument several times with the same rebuttals, just worded slightly differently.

[*Reason for removal*] While some discretion is allowed when assessing conduct, the voter does have to do more than simply cite an "overall lack of decorum", especially when it's not obvious where the voter sees that problem.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leugen9001 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: There were two main factors of this debate: the principal and practical problems of gun control. For the principal point, Con argued that gun control is unconstitutional, but didn't establish why the constitution is important or why we shouldn't change it as situations change. As Pro explained, the world is different from how it was when the constitution was written. Con simply responded by making a slippery-slope argument about America declining into a totalitarian state from gun control without explaining how it's likely to happen. For the practical point, Pro argued that guns facilitate suicide and also cited a source that stated that guns don't help you protect yourself from criminals and may even increase homicide rates. Con responded with a statistic of self-defense; Pro raised doubts about its validity. Con didn't address Pro's doubts in the last round. Thus, Con raises a poorly done principal point and didn't uphold their practical point all the way.