The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
14 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 911 times Debate No: 71890
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)




Gun control is an unnecessary thing, and gun ownership should not be barred. Guns don't kill people- people kill people. In most mass shootings, the killer always takes his/her life. They started the attack with the full knowledge that they would die, and carried through with it. This shows that they WILL find a way to kill people-- whether with knives, arson, or other methods. This can be prevented by keeping a closer watch on mentally ill people and improving their welfare.


P1) Guns increase crime

“Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”(1)

The vast majority of the research suggests the presence of gun in the home increase suicide, homicide, and accidental risk. If this is correct, reducing the amount of homes with firearms would decrease suicide, homicide, and accidental risks.

Another study using “data from 26 developed countries”, the study found “where guns are more available, there are more homicides”(1).

Guns are positively correlated with the homicide rate.

P2) Gun ownership would decrease

As noted above, gun ownership increases violence--both intentional and accidental. This means if the gun supply was reduced, there would be less firearm and overall violence. Law abiding citizens would turn in their firearms. This means fewer accidental deaths and suicides would occur, according to the evidence I provided.

5% of criminals had stolen their firearms, 10% borrowed it, and 8% traded for it (2). This means banning firearms would at least reduce the gun supply by 5%, and maybe 15%. It is also possible they traded for legally purchased firearms, so the gun supply could fall 23%--almost one quarter. This would significantly increase the price of a firearm. Increased prices decrease consumption.

Therefore, as gun ownership would decrease in both law abiding and criminal spheres, death rateswould decrease.

C) Controlling guns reduces the crime rate



Debate Round No. 1


Banning guns is not the answer. When guns are gone, blunt objects follow, then strangulation, fire, and poison. Banning guns has halted rampage shootings, but it does not address the issue of people killing each other. We need to focus on enforcing existing laws, not concocting up new ones.

Gun ownership also have a practical defense use. Gun ownership has increased by more than 5% since 2001, and gun murders are at their lowest rate since 1981. To quote Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, "The facts are that every time guns have been allowed " conceal-carry (gun laws) have been allowed " the crime rate has gone down."(1)

The fact that tougher laws would stem the flow of guns to potential criminals isn't entirely true. If the guns were legally bought, then yes, it would help. But think about what criminals do. They break the law. Sell drugs- and those aren't legal. The government has little flow over that.

Firearms were responsible for 33,636 deaths in 2013. Drug overdoses totaled 43,982. Instead of blaming guns for deaths in the US, we should focus on banning recreational drugs. Instead, they are becoming legal. Guns are intended for defense use. What are those recreational drugs intended to do? They have no good purpose, making people crazed and experience hallucinations. They waste lives. Guns, on the other hand, save lives.



The argument that firearms are used for defensive purposes is half true. The question is whether or not the defensive usages of guns outweigh the harms. There are no convincing studies suggesting defensive gun use is common in the united states. In fact, most research has “found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense” (1).

The increase in gun ownership may or may not be because of the increase in firearm ownership—it seems illogical to say the increase in gun ownership has caused the huge decrease in crime. The death penalty, which has been found to deter 3-18 lives per execution, became much more widespread throughout the 1990s when the majority of the crime decline occurred. The number of executions in 1991 was 14, compared to 98 in 1999 (2). The execution rate has fallen sharply since them—at a time where the crime decline slowed, indicating some relationship may exist. There are many reasons crime fell—including abortion, policing strategies, the end of the crack-cocaine epidemic, the increased risk of being placed in a prison, a growing economy, and, of course, gun control laws (3). Indeed, the crime fell not because gun ownership increased but because of these other factors. In fact, gun control laws (like the Brady Bill) have reduced crime by preventing criminals from obtaining a firearm. I do not need to argue for a ban—just control. And I have proven that control works.

Even pro-gun criminologist Gary Kleck says background checks will reduce crime, and he thinks defensive gun use is VERY common. He argues guns are good and bad: they can reduce crime by deterring it or being used in defense, but they can increase it if a criminal gets a gun. Background checks primarily affect criminals and not law abiding citizens so it will lead to reduced crime. Even though Kleck has found guns are not inherently bad, he has also found that “of 108 assessments of effects of different gun laws on different types of violence, 7 indicated good support, and another 11 partial support, for the hypothesis of gun control efficacy.” (4) Thus, it seems incorrect to say that *all* gun control is ineffective, as *some* gun control laws actually do reduce crime or have at least some empirical standing.

My opponent claims concealed carry laws bring down the crime rate, which may or may not be true. Analysis by economist John Donahue has found those laws have no effect on the crime rate and probably increase aggravated assault rates (5). To say concealed carry laws reduce the crime rate has been proven wrong time and time again.

My opponent says keep drugs banned. I agree! But to dismiss guns as minimal is a weak argument. It is like saying we must combat the AIDS in Bobby because his cancer is not a big problem. Both must be treated, even if one has more urgency. Further, allowing guns to exist not only facilitates crime here, but in Mexico where the drug cartels are a brutal reality. Having a gun market here makes it easier for cartels to kill people abroad.






Debate Round No. 2


Intimidation is often a gun owner's first line of defense. An armed citizen with a gun can be a powerful deterrent to criminals- without anybody being harmed. There are no studies on this topic because intimidation cannot be measured, unlike deaths. It is not a concrete thing that can be proved without interrogating criminals, and even then is uncertain. But it is a real effect- would a criminal or even a hired man want a confrontation that they aren't being paid/rewarded for- especially with an armed person?

"The increase in gun ownership may or may not be because of the increase in firearm ownership"
I'm sorry if I don't understand you here, you probably mistyped something here. Firearm ownership IS gun ownership

Gun control works to a limited measure, but there's a thin line between dictator-like control and control for the people. People have the right to defend themselves, and they will do so. However, if guns cannot be obtained, they will be smuggled. In 2007, officials seized 150,000 kilos of smuggled cocaine. According to the Interpol theory that seized smuggled material is only 10% of the total, 1,500,000 kilos are smuggled into the US. And the number is growing daily. If guns are banned, criminals will turn to smuggling. They will have guns, but no civilians will have any firearms. Completely defenseless.

Lastly, guns in America have little impact on the cartels. Most guns flow from Mexico to the US, and the only weapons from the USA in Mexico are police weapons. When the cartels kill police, they take the weapons that the American government gave to the police. This makes them even more overpowered and able to sell more drugs and guns to the US. Why is no effort put on this?


My opponent claims guns deter crime but drops all of my evidence that guns cause crime more than they deter. He drops my entire R1 case and the evidence in regards to concealed carry last round. He also drops the analysis of Kleck who says even assuming guns are a net good, there are some controls which were effective in reducing crime rates. This alone is enough to win me the debate.

I did mistype—I argued the increase in gun ownership had no effect on the declining crime rate, something my opponent drops.

My opponent claims guns will be smuggled in. This is no doubt true, but there are fewer drugs than there otherwise would be—also note my opponent contradicts his earlier arguments on drug criminalization, meaning the argument has no relevance. Further, this is assuming there is a gun ban. We control some drugs (e.g. alcohol) with restrictions but there is no black-market (usually). This means gun control can work, a gun ban cannot, and all I have to prove is that controls work—I have—and my opponent has dropped that background checks and at least 5 gun control laws have empirical support. Further, if citizens have no guns, there will be no firearm-related suicide or gun accidents, which is a significant benefit. And the cost of guns will increase (as the cost of transport increases), and basic economics tells us that higher prices = fewer people consume the good. Higher prices = fewer criminals have guns. Currently guns are easily accessible for criminals—something my opponent drops as I argued the gun supply would fall 15%.

Giving guns to the cartels is immoral and everyone agrees, but this really doesn’t prove that gun control is bad but that the government is dumb. Research has isolated the effect of the assault weapons ban and has found that removing the ban caused hundreds of deaths in Mexico (1). So restricting guns prevents thousands of murders. This alone is enough to vote Con.


My opponent drops all of my case, he drops that the CRIMINAL gun supply would decrease, he drops that concealed carry laws increase crime, and he drops that there are 5 gun controls which work. This means it is incorrect to say that all gun control is futile. This is a clear Con vote.

Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by sels 3 years ago
If you look at crimes involving guns in the USA you will be astonished at the sheer volume, and if you compare the stats with a country where there are gun control laws such as England there are significantly less. In the USA during 2011 there were 10.30 deaths per 100,000 involving guns (including murders, suicides, accidents) whereas in the United Kingdom in 2010 there were 0.25 deaths per 100,000 involving guns. Gun control makes a difference.
Posted by americanmade23 3 years ago
Instead of heaping in more gun laws and regulations we should be worried about people's mental health that is the problem. If less people had mental health issues then there would be less gun crimes committed.
Posted by beanall 3 years ago
Being against gun rights is pretty illogical. Put it this way. A person who wants to murder people will buy a gun illegally. If he's going to shoot someone, what makes you think he won't also buy a gun? If he buys a gun and goes into a store will he kill more people if no one has a gun? Or if everyone has a gun? Also what happens if your government gains too much power and becomes a cruel dictatorship? It would be impossible to overthrow government. Everyone should have a right to be able to defend themselves adequately.
Posted by Times 3 years ago
Don't forget that America imports over 300 metric tons of illegal cocaine every year. If guns were made illegal like the cocaine then they would just import illegal guns and only criminals would then have the guns.

Remember, the illegal gun crimes are less than the murder crimes the criminals are committing so why would they care about gun laws?

Lastly, just because more crime is seen in areas with more guns that does not mean that guns "caused" the crime, in most cases it is the out of control criminal activity that causes residents in the area to buy more guns when they can for self defense. The stats on ownership are only good for "LEGAL" gun ownership, few criminals buy guns legally so the stats seem pretty clear that the gun ownership is a reaction to the violence, not the cause.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Stefy 3 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know what else to say..Pro owned that sh*t. He cited much more reliable sources than con, was better organized, and had more varied and comprehensive arguments.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution simply reads ?Gun Control?, which is a bit vague. I assume that Con is arguing that all gun control is ?an unnecessary thing?, due to no limiters being placed on the resolution. Essentially, Con?s main contention is that criminals will always find ways to commit crimes, with or without guns. Whilst this may be the case, Pro gave sustained reasoning as to why gun *control*, not banning, would decrease crime rates, of which Con never really contested (instead, Con spent time contesting an outright ban). It is clear that Con did not understand the vast burden of proof required from his/herself. This is why Con even states things like, ?Gun control works to a limited measure?, which essentially concedes the debate. He/She also completely drops arguments like background checks, which whilst they are not super-hardcore gun control mechanisms, they are still gun control mechanisms. Clear win for Pro. Source points go to Pro for being far more sophisticated and extensive.
Vote Placed by Atheism_Debater 3 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 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: I voted Pro only on more convincing arguments, so that is what I will be explaining here. Pro uses studies and research to give evidence to prove his position that there should be gun control. Con quotes what a Republican Rep. said, yet provides no evidence that it is true, and the, ?Gun ownership has increased by more than 5% since 2001, and gun murders are at their lowest rate since 1981.? Which was a legitimate argument until Pro successfully defeats the argument in R2. Con also gives another argument comparing drug use and firearms. Con says how we should be making drugs illegal and not guns. I personally thought this was completely off topic and irrelevant. (Con also says that guns are only for defense and save lives) Pro then defeats the ?saving lives? part and ?guns only for defense? part in R2. He also goes on to engage in Con?s irrelevant argument and defeats it anyways. Pro defeats all of con?s arguments while Con has defeated none of Pro?s. In round 3, Con completely dr