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

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 825 times Debate No: 49468
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




We should not stricken gun control laws because it will not fix anything. Because in America we all no that when you ban something it just magically disappears. Well that's not true. If someone were to break into my house and shoot at me I would that I had the absolute right to shoot back. If guns kill people than pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Oh ne-ne this is not true, people kill people. If we were to make it harder to get a gun than we are leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless, when all the criminals will still be able to get a gun.


Very interesting topic and I absolutely understand your point of view. Yet, I disagree.
From what I see, your main argument is that without guns, people would be defenseless yes? Let's analyze this logically. One or more intruder(s) enter your home. This will most likely be at a time when you are sleeping. Unless your gun is under your pillow, there is almost no situation in which you could have the gun in your hands before the intruders have you under gunpoint.
Now, let's look at some numbers. Death by firearms in 2009 in the US was 10.2 per 100,000 which means that a total 31, 347 deaths. That is a very large amount (especially compared to other countries such as Canada with 2.5 per 100, 000 and the UK with only 0.25 per 100, 000.
If guns were banned, although not all gun violence would stop, access to guns would be much more limited and therefore decrease the amount of annual deaths.
If restrictions were placed on guns, not only would there simply be less weapons in circulation, but they would be much more expensive (in illegal markets) and criminals would be likely to take the risk of possessing weapons, much less using them.
Debate Round No. 1


I see your point. But if you were to look at Switzerland and see that they have about the same amount of guns per capita, but they only have .5 gun related homicides per 100,000 people, whereas we have 5 gun related homicides per 100,000 people. And it is in the Second Amendment, and that Amendment exists to prevent tyranny and also is meant as a provision to repel a foreign invasion. America was founded on the bedrock principle that its citizens faced a hostile environment and had the absolute right to defend themselves, their families and their property. And yes owning and operating a gun is a privilege and once we can no longer be trusted to own guns we will have to come to the end of freedom in this country. Let"s just talk about the shooting at Sandy Hook. The reason that all these shootings are happening at places like schools, movie theatres, and places like that is because they know that guns are not allowed. So they think what would be a better place than that. If one teacher would have known how to use a gun and was packing they probably could have saved almost everybody. Doesn"t it make sense that if at least half the teachers knew how to use a gun and kept it somewhere locked up that less shooting would happen? If every school had a weapons locker that had ammo and weapons, we would have less shootings. This would work because there are no longer signs saying "weapons not allowed pass this point" which is what the shooters are looking for. They know that they aren"t in danger because they won"t have any weapons. And thank you for making some valid points, I am doing a project where we have to research on a topic that we want to debate and then right a 4 page essay. And we needed to get points from the other side and put them into consideration.


Yes, your Constitution's second amendment allows guns, but even the Constitution itself says that amendments are made to suit the conditions/environment. Times have long since changed, and there is no real need to have a weapon in your home. You no longer face a hostile environment. I think the very LEAST we could do is make it so that people with any kind of mental or psychological disorder have no access to weapons because it is almost always those people who commit these acts.

Thank you for the good debate and good luck on your essay.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 7 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Assumed shared Burden of Proof. Con refuted Pro's contention about death rate by using stats from Switzerland. Both Con (safety at schools if teachers were trained) and Pro (scarcity driving up costs) had an argument go unrefuted. Tight debate, but I believe con actually argued better. Pro actually cited a source and had better spelling/grammar.

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