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

It's not the guns, it's the people

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,054 times Debate No: 53292
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Simply put: guns don't kill people. People kill people. You put 50 people in a room with 1 gun. They don't die. You put 50 people in a room with 1 murderer and a gun, people die. You put 50 people in a room with a murderer with a gun and someone else with a concealed carry. Murderer is shot, no one is injured except the assailant. The amount of guns says nothing about the crime rate. Chicago has the most restrictive gun bans and it has the highest crime rate. I hope you know someone can be killed by a baseball bat, a car, a knife, glass, and even football. You gonna ban all those things as well?


Thanks to Pro for the invitation to debate this topic with him, and I wish him an enjoyable debate.

If one wanted to be technical, one could say that neither guns nor people kill people - it's the bullets that kill. But let's not get bogged down in semantics - people with guns kill people - far more effectively than people with knives, baseball bats, cars, glasses or footballs. In fact, almost 70% of all murders in the US are committed with firearms, with all other weapons together making up the remaining 30%. [1]

If we compare countries with similar demographics, the US has 3 times as many gun deaths per head of population as Canada, 10 times Australia, and 40 times the UK. Unsurprisingly, these numbers fairly closely parallel the number of guns owned per person. [2]

More guns = more deaths.



Debate Round No. 1


The amount of guns does not affect the death toll of anything. Yes there may be more deaths, but its not due to the guns being there, its the fact that the person using that gun may be mentally unstable. And guns arn't the only thing that can easily kill people. I mean, how many fatal car accidents have happened in the last year or so? A lot, obviously. But we don't see anything banning automobiles due to their potential hazard. Plus, you completely passed over the fact that Chicago has the highest murder rate even with it having strict gun ban laws. Believe me, it only takes one moment where your in a bad situation and someone with a concealed firearm as a self defense weapon helps you, and then you will realize there are bad people in this world, and sometimes a bat or a knife just isn't enough.


Your "50 people in a room" scenario left out one configuration - the best possible one:

50 people in a room; no guns. No one dies.

Concerning Chicago: This is a huge topic and cannot possibly be addressed in a couple of dozen words. However, immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, there was a 25% drop in gun murders. After the Supreme Court overturned Chicago's ban in 2010, the numbers again rose significantly. Additionally, most of the guns that come into Chicago are from out of state or from parts of Illinois where gun control laws are not so strict[1]. All this points to is the need for a national, regulated gun control policy.

Very few murders are committed with motor vehicles. In contrast, very few deaths by gunshot are accidental. Cars serve vital social and economic functions. The most common purpose of a gun is to kill or threaten to kill something or someone.

Debate Round No. 2


Yes, the murder rate may have gone down 25 percent in Chicago, but do you blame the guns or the people? You do make a good point about guns meant to kill people and that most are not accidents. It all comes down to knowing if the person is in the right mindset and willing to use the gun as self defense and being respectful of the weapon. I have many friends that have guns and treat their firearms with care and respect. Do yoGun control is a lazy step towards a "perfect world" where no one is killed in vain, but we have to realize there are evil people in the world. Criminals don't abide by law and therefore will not abide by gun bans. Say you take away all fire arms known to Man(which is impossible), we will just find something else to kill each other with. Then we will all have knives. I would agree with gun control if it would actually work in the future, but i honestly can't see that happening any time soon. Before we instill gun control, we should have a mental check on society.


My opponent's argument rests on two claims.

The first is that the number of guns doesn't change the number of deaths. He has provided no proof of this, nor has he addressed the figures I provided that prove that throughout the developed western world, the countries with more guns have more deaths. It's self-evident.

His second argument is that if they didn't have guns, people would find some other way to kill each other - he suggests knives as the most likely candidate. Consider this:

9/4/2014 Murrysville, PA. Knife attack. 22 injured, 0 fatalities.
9/4/2013 Cypress, TX. Knife attack. 14 injured, 0 fatalities.
12/14/2012 Newtown, CT. Firearm attack. 26 fatalities, 0 survivors.

This proves that it IS the guns that makes the difference. It is extremely difficult to remove deranged or simply evil people from society (before it is too late), but we can limit the weapons available for their use.

I wish to thank Pro for an enjoyable debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 7 years ago
You have 50 people in a room, and a gun, and a murderer. And none of the 49 people thinks of unloading the gun? Then, you have the gun, the killer, and yet nobody dies. The murderer has a chance to change their mind and better their ways and nobody has to live with the guilt about shedding first blood.
Because in th example, apparently the murderer is shot before killing someone, s/he is hence executed by the concealed gun even before s/he killed someone.
Say, someone goes for the gun to disable it so that nobody gets harmed. The person with the concealed gun mistakes this for an attempt to ge the gun and kill somebody. S/he shoots the one who was only trying to disable the gun. And would get away with it, too. In the US.
Even worse: say the person who wants to disable the gun looks untrustworthy and ANNOUNCES "I'm going to disable the gun!", even THEN the person with the concealed gun could just decide to shoot them and claim to not have had sufficient reason to believe the other person because they wore a sweater with a hood or some other contrived idea of what makes a person a threat.

There's just so many more ways this example can go.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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