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

the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

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  
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: 11/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,700 times Debate No: 82385
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense.

more guns means more overall homicide;

would you be open to this if it could reduce murders by say, eighty percent?

i reluctantly would probably support bans and confiscation on a nationwide scale. this view doesn't make me popular and i dont like taking people's guns away. and i am open to evidence to contradict my main premises and cause me more caution in my view. i am just openly considering the idea, which is what i think should be expected from everyone.

as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense.

i would expect if we banned and confiscated weopons that gun murders would go down as that's what the evidence indicates. i'm sure with the open borders etc that there would still be some murder, and defenseless people, just not as much. the main reason people need a gun for self defense is because there's so many guns to begin with. ive never seen someone acknowledge "yes we get more murder with gun rights, but that's the way it is for self defense". but it seems that's what the situation is. getting rid of guns should be taken seriously, i just dont know the exact numbers for what would happen.

i know australia banned and confiscated a bunch of more serious guns and they knocked their rate in half. and they went from one mass shooting per year to none, that's not a statistical anomaly. that's not bad, if it was more serious confiscating, i could see it knocking say eighty percent of the murders. is that worth it while leaving people defenseless? i suppose it's not unreasonable to think otherwise than what im pushing, but yhou should at least acknowledge the deaths you're allowing for and openly consider both sides.



Thank you for accepting me to challenge to you, again, on this topic.

"as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun."

You haven't linked your Oxford study, so I assume it is the paper titled "Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study". If this is not the correct paper, please link it in your next round so I can address it properly.

This is an example of how statistics can be made to lie by either intent, or omission. The paper is based on the Kellermann Study from 1988 and again in 1993. The Kellermann study has been widely debunked, even though it still provides favorite talking points for anti-gun groups. The Kellermann study has several important flaws, first selective sampling, secondly single sample, thirdly ignoring important data points, The use of the questionable Case-Control Method, spurious associations, and suspected biases. [1,2,3]

Kellermann took one sample county in his study, and claimed that this one county is representative. The problem with this is that there is no 'median' county in the US, both in terms of culture and demographic, even if there was, his inner city sample is hardly the one that is representative.

In addition to this Kellermann, and his colleagues who carried out the subsequent studies ignore what I consider the crucial factor, they only count defensive gun uses when the perpetrator of the crime dies. This alone invalidates the study, as to its claim that a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you. Even the CDC allows for more Defensive Gun Uses [DGUs] per year than assaults with guns.[4,5]

"but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense."

Actually, that isn't what the data suggests, now using international studies we find that nations with more gun control actually have higher murder rates. Switzerland has a .6, while its neighbors France and Germany have a 1.0 and .8 respectively, it should be noted that German laws are only slightly more permissive than those of the French. In fact in the world as a whole many of the nations with the most violent crime do actually have the most restrictive gun laws. Honduras which ranks 82 in gun ownership is number 1 in violent crime, Venezuela which is number 2 in violent crime is number 58. If you look at the entire world in terms of guns per capita vs violent crime, you find virtually no correlation at all, only a slight negative trend in which more guns correlate to less crime (slope -1.3). [6,7,A]

In the United States the trend is similar, but slightly different, states with higher gun ownership actually see fewer murders on average. [8,9,A] However there is a more pronounced negative correlation (slope -3.1). In my opinion, neither of these sets of data show a massive trend in either direction, and there are certainly outliers in each case. But if one wants to draw any conclusion from the available data is must be that the trend is "More Guns = Less Crime" as Lott is famous for saying. Now Lott arrived at a modest 4% difference, I get a 1 and 3 percent difference respectively and again, do not consider it significant enough.

"would you be open to this if it could reduce murders by say, eighty percent?"

Yes, I think if you could prove that guns are the cause of 80% of murders, even I would begin to seriously consider full confiscation. However, as I will demonstrate in a few moments, this is not the case. Your next two paragraphs repeat your opening, to which I have already replied and make the claim that if we confiscated guns that murder would go down, in addition you use the Australia Argument.

The "Australia Argument" is a common talking point of gun control advocates, and shows a complete lack of understanding or even statistical knowledge on the subject. You claim that "i know australia banned and confiscated a bunch of more serious guns and they knocked their rate in half. and they went from one mass shooting per year to none, that's not a statistical anomaly." However, none of this is true. In reverse order, Australia averaged three to four mass killings a decade, not one a year. [10] They still have mass shootings despite a near total ban on Semi-automatic weapons [11]. And finally they did not knock their murder rate in half, in fact the United States has more than double the murder rate decline over the same period of time. In Australia there were 329 murders and manslaughters in 1993, 311 murders in 1996, 322 in 1997 after their new law was passed, 302 in 2003 and the numbers remained higher than the 1993 numbers until 2004 at which point it dropped again to just below, 285, the 1993 numbers. In addition there has been no change in the number of massacres happening in Australia, though now the gun is no longer the weapon of choice. In 2012 there were 292, for a decline of 12%[12]

In the US, Over the same period, we dropped from 25,000+ murders in 1993, to under 15,000 in 2012 a decrease of 30%. And while we did see a small spike in the early 2000's it was nothing compared to what happened in both Australia and the UK. Our spike was still down from the decade before.[13]

It should be pointed out that gun laws in the US have been getting more progressively liberal in the past two decades allowing far more people to own than in the years before.

In Australia, if we look at the numbers, mass killings would have been a serious issue for them, amounting to nearly 10% of murders in their nation, in the US it is less than 1%. More people in the United States are killed each year by bare hands and feet than in mass killings.

In addition, Australia, as well as the UK, are both island nations with many other important differences to consider, not the least of which is the demographic difference. In the United States, one demographic group which makes up less than 20% of the population, is associated with 30-50% of most violent crimes, and 50% of murder.

Source 1 :
Source 2 :
Source 3 :
Source 4 :
Source 5 :
Source 6 :
Source 7 :
Source 8 :
Source 9 :
Source 10:
Source 11:
Source 12:
Source 13:

Lettered Sources will reference data that I have personally taken the time to analyze. My degree is Chemical Engineering, and my hobbies include math and statistics. While I claim no expertise in the fields, I am more than willing to turn over any such data for refutation.

Source A : I can provide an Excel spread sheet in which all the relevant calculations are done. The sources are numerous, and include reported international crime rates and rates of gun ownership from various international databases.
Debate Round No. 1


con must have did his own math in regards to the australia mass shootings cause he jjust cites a list of them and the dates. the problem is he must be calculating in years way prior to the modern era, or when the bans were enacted. in fact, elevent mass shootings occurred in the decade before the ban, and none have happened since. and yes their homicide rate was cut in half.

i can even cite the actual homicide figures which shows this to be true.

con says the study on whether guns are more risky or not is faulty. i admire con's intelligence in general and as he applied it to the debate, but i'm not leaning just on that study. if more guns cause more death, it can be deduced that even one gun is more dangerous than none. plus con is trying to argue against common knowledge among scientists on the point that a gun is more a risk than anything.

con says guns are used just as much in defense as in murder etc. problem, is that he cites the controversial figure kleck, anything with him or Lott is controversial. we should just settle on the point that for every perpetrator who dies in self defense, another thirty people are murdered. there's controversial studies that try to determine how much simply brandishing a weopon changes things for defense, but ive never seen anything credible. at best i saw lott say more than ninety percent of defensive gun use is brandishing a gun. that would mean at best we could say instead of one person v thirty we can do the math and say that for every use of defense of a gun there three homidcides. (murders?)

con tries to say if we look at homicide rate of the whole world we'd see no correlation to guns. the problem is he just cited a wiki page for homicides and a wiki page for gun rates. did he do his own math? plus they are questionable sources. i have a study from harvard and a medical studiy that shows the correlation, as again shown in the comments. plus, i dont know how they picked their countires but they may have just picked countires that are developed similar to the USA.

this chart shows the correlations

here again is the main study

you can click main study, pictures, references etc on the tabs

i actually notice that con cited lott in the more guns less crime argument. this study i just cited reference him as a reason for the study. they found there is no correlation between guns and crime, but there is a correnaton between guns and homicides.
con is citing controversial figures for a lot of his arguements.


Pro seems to have ignored the data I provided about Australia's murder rates, which came directly from Australia's government. The actual agency responsible for the reporting and recording of such numbers shows a modest 12% decline, no matter what Slate says. What pro is actually saying, is that "Homicide by firearm" declined 50%, yes true, the murderer now chooses a different weapon, exactly the point of the pro gun side. As far as not having had another mass shooting, that is simply not true.

The homicide rate of Australia dropped 37% according to the list provided, from 1.95 to 1.24. The rate in the United States has dropped 50% over the same period, from 9.4 to 4.7. [8] Again showing that gun control did nothing for it, both nations saw a decrease in the rate due primarily to increases in population. While in the United States the number of murders had dropped far faster than the same numbers for Australia.

Even conceding a higher rate of mass killings in Australia, we still find that mass killings were an actual problem in Australia, where they accounted for full percentages of the total murder rate. Something that is not true in the United States, where less than 1% of all murder victims are mass killing victims.

Pro again makes the argument that more guns cause more death, but a look at the statistics simply doesn't bear that idea out. As I provided above, lists of states vs murder rates shows a negative correlation between guns and murder, that is more guns equal less murders.

Pro's next argument is to make up numbers rather than attack the data, you don't get to establish that because you don't like a source it is not credible, show me why it isn't credible or is it that you can't? A run down of the numbers, done on the progun sources linked above [1,2] shows that the number isn't 30 times. At best you could count 3 times. Counting suicides as gun deaths for the purposes of legislation is outright deceptive. Suicide has many causes, and the nations with the highest suicide rates in the world have near total gun bans. After removal of suicides the Kellermann studies get you only a 2.7 : 1 ratio, and that is before removing criminality from the information, that is counting for the fact that criminals with guns are more likely to murder than non-criminals with guns. Even the VPC whose total running numbers track murders from 2007 with guns, shows that in the last 8 years less than 100 murders per year, or less than 1%, are carried out by legal gun owners.[13]

I never cited Kleck, that study is flawed, however the CDC does consider it for its calculations, but even ignoring those numbers, the CDC arrived at more than 500,000 DGUs per year.

And here we go again, when faced with data and facts, pro, like most anti-gun people, turns to fine tuned data to show their point. Let me make this clear, even in your own data you fail to notice a key point. Your data shows that 'Firearm related deaths' drop, sure. I concede that point. However much like what happened in Australia, Knife related deaths go up. Fist related deaths go up, baseball related deaths go up. You are not actually stopping the murders, you are simply moving them from one column on a report to another and trying to claim victory. So throw out your single column of data, and look at all the homicide columns. When you do that your graphs change.

The question to Pro is this, do you only care about gun deaths? If so then sure, ban guns and end gun deaths, whatever. But if we are talking about actually reducing murders, then we must look at all the data, not just a single column of homicide data, and decide from there what works best. In the UK and Australia, we see that murders simply moved from one column to another, that there are now more knife murders and less gun murders, but that the number of murders has practically remained flat. In the US we have allowed more guns, and seen a drop in the number as well as rate of murders. My question to you is simple, do you care about all victims of violence, or only those that fit a specific type of weapon? It can be shown that other violent crime types actually increase after gun bans.

Debate Round No. 2


here is a source for the 1 in 34 justifiable homicides v none justifiable. that doesn't include suicides as the link indicates

con says i included suicides but that's not true. again look at the math from even the questionable source i mentioned last round of lott and if ninety percent of defensive use of guns is brandishing a weopon, then the rate of legit use v non legit use is one to three. simple math, regardless of what source he uses.

it isn't that firearm deaths decreased by fifty percent, it is total rate of murders decreased by fifty percent. to be fair, it depends on when you count to what year, but it's close to 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000. it may have been only 37% in a given year as cited by con, but the overall trend is closer to half.

and that highlights another point. the overall death rate went down with the advent of gun confiscation. that is backed up by the harvard study i cited and i might be wrong but also the medical study (?) i cited with the graph in the last post. again, they say overall death declines with less guns, which means they aren't just killing with knives and bats to make up for it.

i dont know where con is getting his data that says there's no correlation between guns and homicides. is he doing his own calculation from the wiki links? i'm just not sure.


Once again, the statistic ignores any time that death of the perpetrator doesn't occur. Pro seems to think the only legitimate DGU involves the death of the perpetrator? What about wounded? Going with the lowest possible estimate, 100,000 non-fatal DGUs per year, the death rate goes from 1:34 to 10:1 and that is being very conservative. [14] The NCVS survey from which that comes is considered to be well below the mark. If we use the CDC's numbers it becomes 50:1.

Again, Justifiable Homicide is not the only use, and only counts when someone is killed in the shooting. If there is injury or no injury in the use, then this stat is not considered. Guns are used even by the CDC's estimate no less than 300,000 times per year. Here is the thing, a quote directly from the guy who has written the policy for anti-gun groups for the last 20 years : " "even if we could develop a reliable estimate of[DGU] frequency, it would only be of marginal relevance to the
ongoing debate over gun control" (Cook and Ludwig 1996). So if we could get a good estimate of the numbers, it wouldn't be relevant? And that has been the attitude of many people, pro included. For the record, Kleck, et. al. actually wrote a rebuttal defending his numbers, found here. [15] Showing that his numbers are very close to the upper bound annually, and the lower bound is likely somewhere around 700,000, or more than twice the lower bound of the CDC.

Pro again points out simple math, but doing so only using DGU fatalities, once again pro shows they only care if someone dies in the process.

Again Pro shows the ability to ignore the numbers, the data available to us shows only a 37% decrease and a larger decrease in the US as compared to Australia, of nearly 50%. That is just in rates, but the thing is the number of murders dropped almost 40% in the US as well, while in Australia they dropped a mere 12%. Not only is the US doing better in terms of murder rate decline, but in terms of absolute number of murders decline.

Overall deaths do not decline, only deaths involving a gun decline. I have linked multiple sources for that already.

As to where my data comes from, simple, take the list of US states, and take the murder rates per state, now take the guns per capita in each state, and do a comparison. Same for international data. Run a trend line, once you do that you see clearly there is no correlation, or a negative one. The same thing that has been reported over and over again in multiple studies, the most famous of which is the Lott one.

Pro has ignored, flat out ignored, any data that contradicts their point of view. I have provided multiple sources, as well as a short brief of my own analysis, which is easy to duplicate. There is simply no evidence to support that gun bans, confiscations, or gun control actually saves even a single life.

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
con may have a point. ammoung all nations there's not much correlation. but with developed nations there is. this link includes the graphs.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
includes all kinds of pro gun control studies
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago

a working link with the other links included in it
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hunts 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not capitalize one word, so he lost the spelling and grammar. Pro ignored the sources provided by con which countered all of pros arguments. Con was very gracious to pro ignoring the facts provided by his very reliable sources. I always check the links and cross reference them but I could not find any of pros sources anywhere else, although I found several different links backing up cons links. These points had a trickle down effect which made cons arguments more convincing. Nice job con!