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

Gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 94290
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Gun control.. Come on! It doesn't work! As you can see in Chicago and D.C. As well as in Japan. It is the 2nd amendment right and it shall not be infringed upon. We, Americans, need an equalizer. Something to guarantee our safety. Against potential government tyranny and criminals. As the unfortunate victims in the Orlando night club stated, "We wish we had guns!" And don't bring up the argument that criminals bring guns from other states to Chicago and D.C. Why do you think they go to those areas? They go there because the citizens do not have an equalizer and therefore are easy prey for deranged people and criminals! For example, the Orlando shooting, It was a gun-free zone. Thus they were easy targets.


Well, "gun control" is such a broad topic, but I'm going to talk about universal background checks mainly. If this is not what you meant by gun control please inform me.Claim one: It doesn't work--According to Columbia University, both universal background checks on gun purchases and background checks for ammunition purchases can dramatically reduce gun violence. Checks on gun purchases could reduce gun violence by 56.6% and ammunition checks could reduce it by 80.6%. ( over 31,000 Americans die each year from gun injuries, so ammunition background checks could save 25,000 lives each year and gun background checks could save 17,500 American lives each year. So claims that gun control doesn't work are simply false.

Next you mention the Second Amendment. Although gun bans are unconstitutional, the amendment does allow for regulation within reason. That's why you can't own a rocket launcher as a civilian. Same goes for background checks. In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to not allow people with grievous criminal records or mental health issues to purchase firearms.

Finally, you say we need an equalizer, which implies that the more guns a community possesses, the safer it is. So if this were true, the country with the most per capita gun ownership would have the least per capita gun deaths, right? Let's see if this is true.

The United States leads in per-capita gun ownership worldwide. There are 112.6 guns for every 100 citizens; more than enough for everybody to have one gun. This is followed by Serbia, Yemen, Switzerland, and Cyprus.( Thus, the United States should have the lowest rate of gun deaths among developed countries, right? But it doesn't. It has the most guns and the least gun control among developed countries, yet it leads in gun deaths among the same( This would imply that more guns means less safety. The United States, contrary to your claim, leads in gun deaths among developed countries. Thus, stricter gun laws and background checks do not make citizens less safe, proving your claim false.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for debating firstly. Secondly, background checks have nothing to do with gun control. Licensing does. That's what gun control is. Making it incredibly difficult to attain a gun. Background checks are easy. What I am against is the extraction of any type of gun from the public. As you can see by statistics, it does not have any effect on the gun violence, violent crime, and homicide rates. Let me provide that for you. UK: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing. Scotland is basically the same stat except after the gun ban the crime shot up exponentially and has stayed. To give you some more country's, Mexico, Cuba, Japan, England, France, Scotland, and Ireland are all great examples in which gun control has not worked or has not affected anything, at all. Now let me give you examples within the U.S. First of all, California has many of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet those laws did absolutely nothing to stop the San Bernardino shooting. It is also recorded in Chicago, that a person is shot every 2.8 hours despite the intense gun restriction. As well as Washington D.C., which has a similar stat.


Well, since you didn't define gun control in your opening arguments, I understood that we would be debating the generally accepted definition of gun control.

Gun control:regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns. (

Because background checks and the like regulate the selling of guns, they are, by definition, gun control. It is what is commonly referred to when people talk about gun control. No, not all forms of gun control work. But some, such as background checks for gun and ammunition purchases, do work, as shown by my statistics. So when you make broad statements such as "gun control doesn't work", you can't address just one narrow form of gun control. You have to address the whole field and prove that all forms of gun control do not work, not just one. You have made the claim that all forms of gun control do not work, and I have made the claim that some forms of gun control work. Thus, you must prove that all forms, including the ones I mentioned in Round 1, do not work. I simply must prove that some work, as shown in my Round 1 arguments.

Since Con has neglected to respond to any of my arguments from last round, I extend.

Eagerly awaiting my opponent's response!
Debate Round No. 2


Definition? You asked for it. Gun control (or firearms regulation) refers to laws or policies that regulate within a jurisdiction the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians. Background checks obviously do not and have not limited the manufacturing, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians. When a country is known to have gun control, they are known to have licensing and lower manufacturing of guns. This is obviously not true in the U.S. As you said before, we are a country with the least amount of gun control with Serbia following. Is the U.S. considered a country with gun control legislation? NO. I mean we are famously known as a country to have little to none gun control. So you just contradicted your own argument. Funny. And by the way, Background Checks are not very strong in the U.S. So your arguments are laughable. A huge manifestation of this is the Orlando shooting. Omar Mateen underwent 2 background checks that obviously DID NOT work, as he then went on to kill 49 people with a lethal weapon.

The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010, based on red flags raised by the background check system, according to the most recent data available from the Department of Justice. That's just 1 percent of the more than 6 million applications. The most common reasons: nearly half were felony indictment or conviction; 19 percent were fugitives; and 11 percent were those who had violated state laws. The rejection rate has been essentially unchanged over the years. (There is a right to appeal.) The system is weak. And it is obviously not gun control. If it was a form of gun control, then our nation would be considered a nation that has gun control. Easy logic. Maybe not for you. It might be too much information for you to process.

By the way, do you even acknowledge your hypocrisy here? You said that I did not respond to you while you did not respond to any of my basic points about how actual gun control doesn't work and has been ineffective throughout the country's that I have mentioned. As well as my points on how gun control does not work within our country. And cut that "I thought that we would be debating the generally accepted view of gun control." Come on! We all know that gun control is policy that pushes for taking guns away from the public, cutting the manufacturing of guns for the public, and forcing people to get licenses which is intentionally made so it is practically impossible to attain a gun. And as shown by my previous statistics. It saves some lives, but doesn't make it hard at all for criminals to attain a gun. As of the status quo. As Obama even said, someone you are probably a supporter of, "It's time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun," Obama said. "If you want to buy a gun " whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller, you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one. This is common sense." There you go. So it was probably a bad idea to put forth a brief statement with little to no stats.


I apologize. I cannot post an argument right now. Seeing as Con has again refrained to respond to my arguments, both about Con's effectiveness argument and the "equalizer" argument, I extend.

Thank you for the debate sir. Best of luck to you.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ofryinstr 2 years ago
Okay, i've got one thing on my mind... that the Hilaryforprez guy has definitely got an L today.
No votes have been placed for this debate.