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

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
apaec has forfeited round #3.
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: 6/25/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 371 times Debate No: 115999
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)





I am arguing in the name of not controlling peoples guns, but rather fixing the issue from where it stems in the first place. Why do people commit mass murders using guns, and how can we stop that?

To begin, i'd like to say that guns are not the issue. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Cars kill people as well, so why don't we ban cars? Knives do too. Every time you hear gun control, you hear about banning assault rifles. Most homicides are committed using handguns, not assault rifles. Handguns are the weapons of choice for gang violence, because of how easy they are to smuggle and obtain illegally. Handguns are the weapon of choice for robbers and criminals and thieves to use because of how small and effective they are. What would gun control do to stop violent crime? Nothing. As a matter of fact, it would encourage crimes to happen. In order for a person to obtain a gun in the USA, they must pass a background check using FBI databases, as well as go through a gun safety course and obtain a licence to carry. If if you fail the checks, or fall into one too many categories of a dangerous person, you cannot obtain a gun and use lethal force in your criminal attempts. In order for a mentally incapable person or criminal to obtain a gun, they must obtain it illegally (although, anecdotal evidence exists, such as in MSD, where a mentally ill piece of trash was allowed a gun, and was not recognized to be mentally ill by the terrible school systems, and the terrible law enforcement did nothing to stop him). Gun control prohibits people from legally obtaining certain guns, or any guns, which tells criminals that law abiding citizens who mind their own business cannot defend themselves from a robbery or a burglary, or a shooting. They may have knives, or pepper spray, but what's pepper spray going to do against a person with a gun, who can kill you from across the building or from the other side of the street? What if your house is being robbed, would you rather hide in your closet and hope you don't get caught and killed while the police take 10 minutes to arrive, assuming that you had the time to call for the police? By then, the criminal would have escaped, done damage, murdered you, and stole valuables. I would much rather be able to defend myself against the criminal while law enforcement arrives and prosecutes the them.

Gun control doesn't control criminals, it controls the law abiding citizen.


While I will admit that there is a deeper issue at work, it isn't something that can be easily solved. Looking at mass shootings, most of the shooters either had a mental illness or some form of prejudice against those they attacked.

Enacting more stringent gun control laws wouldn't have stopped these shooters if they really tried. There will always be a black market that they can access. But it would make the act of obtaining a firearm much more difficult, especially if they are mentally ill. Sure, it won't stop everyone, but a partially effective solution is better than no solution at all, and if it prevents even one shooting it will have done some good.

The problem is that although mass shootings receive the most press, they cause the vast minority of deaths. According to there were 15,102 deaths by firearm in the US in 2016 (Not counting suicide). Out of those 15 thousand, only 382 were a result of mass shootings. Most of these deaths were the result of criminal activity. Now to try to reduce this number of deaths, one can try to reduce the crime rate. However, crime is a very complex issue, brought about by multiple socioeconomic factors that are not easily changed.

It's true that in certain situations a car or a knife can be deadly, but in most of those situations a gun would be much more deadly. Another problem is that a car or a knife are tools that the modern world cannot function without. A gun, on the other hand, is a tool with one very specific purpose - to propel a piece of metal at supersonic speeds towards a target. It simply isn't very useful in the modern world.
Debate Round No. 1


Mhmmm, I see your points. Good points.

Let's take Louisiana, for example. It is the murder capital in the states, yet they have very relaxed gun laws. One would come to the conclusion that the more relaxed the gun laws are, the higher the murder rates are. That is not entirely true. According to a person has a 1 in 225 chance to become a victim of violent crime in California, the state with the strictest gun laws. 104,375 assaults, 54,789 robberies, 13,702 rapes and 1,930 murders annually in California, although the Brady Campaign To End Gun Violence has said it has the best gun control laws in the entire country. In Louisiana, however, my rates of becoming a victim of violent crime are 1 in 177. Higher percentage, much more dangerous, according to the same source. Louisiana houses 18,556 assaults, 5,576 robberies, 1,816 rapes and 554 murders. The percent is higher (1 in 177), but that is only because Louisiana has only 4.6 million people in it, while California has 40 million, huge difference.

I agree with you that there is something working under the covers here, and that is the purpose of this debate, to discuss whether gun control laws are the solution to them. The reasons people commit crimes is for motivations mostly relating to economic factors. According to BBC UK, there are other reasons for crimes being committed, such as parental neglect, low self-esteem, drug and alcohol abuse. Other factors are related to the circumstances of the children being born into. Now, let us look at the composition of those two states, specially at the black populations. I am no racist, don't get me wrong here. I love all people from all races. I agree with you that mass shootings get the most media press, and violent crimes are the real issues at hand. Black people in the US constitute about 13% of the population, 6% males and 7% females. Yet, according to the FBI Table 43 of crimes in 2015, blacks committed 51% or murders, 28% of rapes and 53.5% of robberies. We all know that not all blacks are criminals, so not even the entire 13% are criminals. Lets say 75% of them, or 9.75% of the US population commit all those crimes. Even that number might be skewed. The fact that such a small percent of the population commit such disproportionate amounts of crimes is crazy. We have to look into why that is. According to 45.8% of young blacks ( under 6 ) grow up in poverty. 66% of black births are to single mothers, whereas the number is 24% for whites according to The numbers have jumped since 2016, though. Bad cultures brew in areas where there are no good role models. Bad cultures brew in areas where children join gangs rather than go to school. Young people who are incompetent do not deal with life through hard work, and instead instead turn to crimes, and use guns to commit those crimes. Illegally obtained guns. The issues behind gun control isn't "Why are guns killing people?", but rather "Why are people resorting to guns to kill people, and why?".

Of course not every single person in the states is entitled to a gun. Of course not. We need better mental health checks and background checks. We need better crackdowns on dark web and black markets. THAT is the gun control that must be spoken for. The left, however, take gun control away from controlling and busting the guns and methods that guns are obtained illegally, and control the guns of the law abiding citizens instead, be them black, white, red or yellow.

I believe that we can solve the issues behind gun violence by tackling the reasons people use the guns in the first place, not taking away guns from the people who actually need them. If we take away guns, the title will simply change to knife violence, just like in the UK. Guns are just a tool, and can be used for both good and bad.


To your point about California vs. Louisiana, the explanation is pretty simple. California has a median income of $67,739 (1) while Louisiana has a median income of $45,146 (2). As I've said previously, crime results from many socioeconomic factors, one of the most important being wealth. After all, a multimillionaire has no need to rob a store or deal drugs. It's not surprising that the poorer state has a higher rate of crime.

I have a problem with your ending point. Every time gun control is in the news, those in support of it (Mostly the Republican party) always say the same things. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.", "It isn't a gun issue, it's an issue of mental illness.", "There is another, underlying issue that we need to resolve." Even if those points are true, the statements only ever redirect blame away from guns until the media heat dies down, at least until the next big shooting. After every shooting, nothing ever happens. No steps are taken to provide access to mental illness treatment, no steps are taken to address the wealth disparity in America, and the only thing that changes is that gun sales skyrocket. The problem with citing the UK's murder rates is that people only ever state that the UK has a higher murder rate without guns, and it ignores any other factors except for guns. The rate of crime in the UK is also a result of increased wealth disparity since the late 90s.

Under the capitalistic system that the US is under, the wealth disparity will only keep growing. But that's not going to change. It is almost impossible to stop the momentum of the international economy. There is always going to be crime, it's human nature. However, something can be done is to further restrict the sale of guns. The US can either continue to sit on its hands and try to change human nature, or it can step forward and actually solve the problem. But while they wait the body count will only rise.

Debate Round No. 2


I agree about the wealth factor. Economic factors play a huge role in crime commitment.
To be fair with you, I agree with you on how nothing is being done about safety. Have you seen the chrome paint job on Broward Sheriff's new car? It's all over Twitter. Instead of wasting that money on a chrome dodge charger, the money could have been well spent training officers oh how to defend schools better. On how to spot criminals and potential criminals better. On how to crack down and track black markets. Gun sales skyrocket because people know they cannot rely on a government doing such a bad job keeping its people safe. We live in a country where its people work against each other all the time, democrats vs republicans, so no wonder people want to find a way to defend themselves.

Under the capitalistic systems of the USA, people are only getting richer. Only people who do not do anything to fix their lives stay permanently poor. Now every single home has AC, fridges, TV's, Internet. The wealth disparity grows, correct. But the rich get richer, and the poor get richer as well. There always will be crime, I totally agree with you. Some people are born bad. Cannot deny that. But that brings a question to mind: If the poor in the USA have a chance to escape poverty once and for all, thanks to the capitalist system (which is true, I used to be extremely poor, but I worked, and so did my family, and now we're living a wonderful life), then why do people resort to crime to solve their socioeconomic issues? I will host a debate after this, actually, about whether BLM was actually helpful or not for blacks. They share the same theme, though: Why resort to violent crime to solve your issues, when you can actually just work your way out of them?

A complex issue cannot have a simple solution. The reason people commit crimes is because of culture, lack of information about how to better their lives without resorting to crime, and sometimes just flat out pure evil. We cannot stop evil once and for all. There always will be some evil to break through a wall of good. And to be honest, the government should do more to train its own officers to keep citizens safer, while trying to figure out a complex fix for a complex problem. The US has actually been getting only safer (1). Rates of violent crimes are only dropping, that's because of the development of society, and the peoples learning of how to better their lives and not resort to violent crimes, as well as the police force becoming better at their jobs.

I believe that working your way through your problems is the real fix for violent crimes, rather than gun bans. If we take away guns, people will find other tools. The best gun control, in my opinion, is to find out why people use guns to commit crimes. I know I said this point before, but it stands true.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 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.