The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Gun Control

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Lva23 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2018 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,253 times Debate No: 111952
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Gun control does not need to happen in America. Bad people will find a way to do bad things which is true for a lot of terrorist attacks. The daily wire writes "In 1976, D.C. implemented a law that banned citizens from owning guns, as only police officers were allowed to carry firearms. Those who already owned guns were allowed to keep them only if they were disassembled or trigger-locked. Trigger locks could only be removed if the owner received permission from the D.C. police, which was rare.
According to prosecutor Jeffrey Shapiro, the results were not good. Annual homicides rose from 188 in 1976 to 364 in 1988, and then increased even further to 454 in 1993. The gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, and homicides have steadily declined since then to 88 yearly murders in 2012. While Shapiro admits that there were other factors involved with the decline in homicides, lifting the gun ban clearly did not result in a rise in murders." This is a piece of evidence that shows that it clearly did not help. Another thing people pro gun control like to use is the argument about Australia. a 2008 University of Melbourne study " concluded that Australia's temporary gun ban had no effect on the gun homicide rate. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott had similar findings. "Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward trend in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback," wrote Lott. "It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback."
"Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts," Lott continued. "In fact, the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons. Note that the change in homicides doesn"t follow the change in gun ownership " there is no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased." A lot of gun related deaths were suicide. The school shooting statistics also are not very accurate as they like to count any gun that goes off in a school zone a school shooting this means accidental fires, murders in any area of a school, and many other factors that should not contribute to these statistics.


Thanks for the debate Pro. If you would, please post links to the articles you are citing so that I can fact check them. I don't have any way to know how valid your sources are otherwise. I would also urge voters not to give Pro grace on this issue as it skews the ground unfairly in their favor by making their claims falsifiable. Without documentation, Pro's claims are unfounded and cannot be grounds to vote for them.

First, we need to make a distinction between gun control, and gun bans. Gun control encompasses measures which regulate and control the sale of fire arms. This includes things such as more comprehensive background checks, waiting periods between applying to purchase a gun and receiving one, and closing loopholes which allow the sale of firearms to individuals who would not otherwise be allowed to legally own one(Think gun shows and pawn shops). This definition isn't comprehensive, but I'd like to think it outlines what con means when talking about gun control. Banning guns means taking away the right to purchase, or own guns. The topic does not give Con the burden to show that guns should be banned, only that gun control is a good idea. Therefore, if Con is able to show any advantages to gun control, he will win the debate

Second, Gun control reduces violent massacres. Pro notes in their opening statements that "Bad people will find a way to do bad things [without guns]", which I think misses the point behind gun control pretty dismally. I agree that people can still be violent without the use of guns, but the question of scope and reach is the one that is important. On March 7, 2018 there was a school attack in the Netherlands[1] where the perpetrator attempted to harm students and faculty members using two knifes. Despite his weapon of choice, no one was hurt as the students managed to fend of the attacker by throwing their backpacks at him. This man clearly had an intent to harm, if he had access to a semi-automatic rifle, these kids would be dead.

Finally, Pro uses Australia as reason that Gun Control is unnecessary, however since Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles and other Military style weapons were banned in 1996, there has not been a single mass-shooting[2]. Single round weapons such a rifles and hand guns are still legal in Australia, but because they are not nearly as dangerous as assault rifles, the country hasn't seen this kind of tragedy since. There was a shooting in 2002 where an attacker killed two students using a handgun, after which legislation was introduce to encourage an optional buy-back program for hand guns. Since then, there have been no other reported incidents of gun violence in Australia. Compare that the Untited States where over 15,000 people were murdered because of Gun Violence[3] in 2017, and a vote against gun control becomes laughable pretty quickly.

I agree that people with evil hearts will still seek ways to hurt others; but to say that that's a reason to allow them access to military grade weaponry is unconscionable. If these people intend to harm others, I want it to be difficult for them. I don't want them to be able to murder 30 people in the blink of an eye at a whim, and that's why I stand in negation.

Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Quesadillas 3 years ago
That's nice, ILikePie5. Send me a challenge.
Posted by ILikePie5 3 years ago
I"could easily shred the Neg's argument into pieces
Posted by Quesadillas 3 years ago
Thank you so much!
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Wonderful argument Con. Well thought out, well written, and very much agreed with. :)
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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