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

banning guns

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: 6/15/2016 Category: People
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 776 times Debate No: 92772
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




OPENING STATEMENT: i'm with and against it because it can be used to defend the house but there should be more laws on it


A. The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [1] Notice the bolded words. I won't focus on the fundamentals of a militia, but I'd like to add on the "well-regulated" part.

"The phrase 'well-regulated' was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order." [2]

With the way guns are handled today, you can't exactly call it well-regulated. I'll get back to that in the following points, though.

B. Homicides Would Decline

According to gun statistics, 88.8 out of every 100 Americans own guns. The firearm homicide rate is 3.54 out of every 100,000 Americans. [3] Let's compare these rates to Japan. In Japan, 0.6 out of every 100 people have guns and exactly zero firearm homicides happened there in 2008. [3]

"Civilians can never own handguns. Small calibre rifles were once legal, but in 1971, the Government forbade all transfers of rifles. Current rifle license holders may continue to own them, but their heirs must turn them into the police when the license-holder dies. Total remaining rifle licenses are 27,000. Even shotguns and air rifles, the two legal types of firearm, are becoming rarer and rarer, as few people find it worthwhile to pass through a burdensome gun licensing process. The number of licensed shotguns and air rifles declined from 652,000 in 1981 to 493,373 in 1989." [4]

In other words, Japan has strict gun control laws and, in turn, they have less firearm homicides than America, where we're more flexible in terms of gun control. What would happen if we put these types of laws in place in the U.S? Looking at the stats of Japan, America's homicides probably go down.

C. Mass Shootings

Sub-point 1. Statistics/Decline Chance

"According to the Tracker’s data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870." [5] This was recorded in 2015 alone. If more gun control laws were put in place, imagine the decline that could take place. In fact, the U.S has the highest mass shootings rates out of any other nation, developed or third-world. [6]

If we put laws in place, more innocent lives could be saved. We wouldn't put their families in risk of grief or loss because their family member was killed.

Sub-point 2. Mass Shootings of the Past/"Regulation"

I'll look at three examples of mass shootings and how the shooters got their guns.

First, the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They killed a total of 13 people in Columbine High School on April 20th, 1999. They also took their own lives after the massacre. [7]

"Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal 'straw purchase.' Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500." [8] There was no mental health assessment of the original buyers recorded. This is just one example of so-called "regulation".

Secondly, I present Brenda Spencer. On January 29, 1979, Spencer shot 11 and killed two from her bedroom window across the street from a school. Her motivation? "I Don't Like Mondays." Where did she get her .22 rifle? From her father who was aware of her being suicidal and that she had anger issues. [9] Again, no mental health check was made.

Lastly, we have the more recent Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting committed by Adam Lanza. Lanza killed his mother and 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary. The guns were, indeed, his. But he was said to have severe schizophrenia. Yet, the gun was still sold. [10]

D. "Regulation" in General

Previously, private sellers weren't required to do background checks of any kind on their customers to make sure they are fit to own a gun. [11] It was announced back in 2013 that universal background checks were going to be required. [12] But they still get around it!

"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 1.2 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." [12]

This proves that there are inaccuracies in the background checks. If the U.S were to place stricter gun laws, we could be comparable to nations of lesser gun homicides and gun violence, like the aforementioned Japan.

In conclusion, increasing gun control is the best way go when it comes to reducing violence. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttal.

Debate Round No. 1


monster15243 forfeited this round.


My argument extends.
Debate Round No. 2


monster15243 forfeited this round.


My argument extends. Vote pro!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro as con forfeited every round.

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