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

Would gun control work?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 44648
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I strongly believe that gun control will not work, and I have many reasons why gun control will not reduce murder rates:
1) Criminals are exactly that; criminals. Criminals are called criminals because they do not follow the laws. So, will a criminal have to listen just because of a law that prevents them from buying a gun? No, they can still buy illegal guns, they can still get someone to buy them a gun, and they can still steal registered guns.
2) Yes, the gun murder rate will drop slightly, but what about the rest of the murders? Stabbings, bombings, running people over, etc. I suppose we'll have to ban knives and cars, too, then? Or do the gun control advocates not care about the victims of those murders, just the gun victims?
3) Gun control is proven not to work. Let's take Russia as an example. They have very strict gun control laws, and you guessed it, they have a very, very high murder rate.


I accept the challenge graciously, and since Con has already posted an argument, I will post mine before providing a rebuttal to Con's claims.

My Argument:
Gun control is not only effective, but paramount to the safety of everyone in society. The best scenario a gun control advocate could hope for would be a strict ban on the manufacture, sale, and purchase of firearms. The ideal scenario would include this, but would also include a recall and immediate dismantling of all confiscated firearms. I will be the first to admit that neither of these scenarios is likely to ever occur, but for the sake of the argument I will assume the latter has taken affect.

What would happen:
1) An immediate drop in murder rate.
While Con is correct in stating that there will still be murder, many studies show that making guns more difficult to obtain does reduce crime. States that have gun control laws on the books have a lower rate of murder where firearms are used.
2) A boost to the economy
More people means more production. Instead of wasting time in the ground, people can instead be working and contributing to the growth of the United states in non-violent ways.
3) More public funds
Less money would need to be spent on police for public safety, which would increase the amount of money the states give to other areas. Education, infrastructure, public works, tax breaks, safety net programs, worker training programs, anything that isn't police. And with less violent crime to focus on, the police would be free to focus on other crimes, like property crimes and cases of abuse.

Whether or not gun control will be implemented is still up for debate, but this issue is not. If properly implemented, gun control has the potential to save thousands of lives each year.

1) Yes, criminals will still have access to guns through intermediaries, but most murders are crimes of passion. They are impulsive in nature and, if given enough time to stop and think about what they are doing, most criminals would abandon their pursuits. There is a reason we make a big deal whenever a 1st degree murder case pops up, it's because they're so unusual and uncommon.
2) Looking at the ideal scenario, the removal of all guns from society, you would see an 85% drop in the overall murder rate. Murders are committed with other weapons, but the vast majority of homicides are gun homicides. Even a small decrease in the rate of firearm murders would have a big impact on the number of lives saved.
3a) Russia is not America. The police in Russia are corrupt, inefficient, and are universally mistrusted by the public. This leads to many people in Russia taking the law into their own hands. Say what you will about police in America, they are at least respected.
3b) Take a look at Australia. In 1996 they enacted a ban on certain types of firearms in response to several mass shootings and since then their homicide rate has dropped 20%. Gun homicide rates have dropped even more sharply. Granted, Australians never had a constitutional right to own firearms, so that must be taken into account. But a 20% drop in overall homicides is not something to be discounted.
Debate Round No. 1


You bring up a good point about Australia, and how they never had a right to firearms. But, as you stated to my example of Russia, Australia is not America. Citizens have a right to bear arms, as stated in the second amendment. Now, mind you, I am not saying that it's okay to be in possession of AR-15s, they should be meant for the military. But if you own anything from a pistol to a rifle, it's okay with me and I'm not going to try and take that right away from you.
Also, the majority of gun owners are not criminals, so why would you try and take rights away from law abiding citizens? It is unneeded and violates the second amendment. As I stated before, criminals will not abide by the laws so gun control is merely a hurdle to jump over.


By your logic, every single preventative law is simply a hurdle to jump over. We restrict and prohibit things because it provides a disincentive to go through with it. Sometimes these things work, and sometimes they don't. But the only way we can find out if something will work is by trying it in an experimental fashion, or by observing natural experiments and drawing conclusions. Data shows that states with less gun restrictions have more crime, even worse they spill over into neighboring states.

I must point out that I'm glad you believe civilians should not have military style weapons designed to kill as many humans as quickly as possible. There is no constitutional right to that. Relating to this, I believe that we need to look at the second amendment in the context of the time period. When the second amendment was written, the best marksmen could reload a single shot in about fifteen seconds, and they were only accurate at short to medium range. Today, we have weapons that can accurately fire hundreds of rounds per second with comparatively little training. While these weapons are not available to civilians it still shows that technology has advanced far beyond the scope of what the framers could reasonably conceive of.

I will admit that most gun owners are law abiding citizens. However, the majority of murders involve guns. As I said earlier, the murder rate alone would drop 85% if you remove guns from the equation. Other crime would likely decrease as well, as there are few things more frightening than someone pointing a gun at you.

And regarding magazine size, which for some bizarre reason is vehemently opposed whenever brought up, is there any reason why you would need more than five rounds in a magazine?
Debate Round No. 2


kkloviee forfeited this round.


McCainOffensive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by McCainOffensive 5 years ago
Sorry, had a massive research paper to do and this kinda fell by the wayside. That doesn't excuse my lack of a third argument, just wanted to explain where I was.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 5 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: argument that convinced me was, "majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens," and "the murder rate in Russia" arguments that didn't convince me was that "removing guns from the market would somehow boost the economy."