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

All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 10/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 819 times Debate No: 80965
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that all law-abiding citizens should be able to obtain a gun license.

Con will be arguing that citizens should not have access to guns unless their job requires it.

Burden of proof is shared.

For the first round, accept the challenge.


Thank you for creating this debate topic and challenging me to it Bob13. I look forward to interesting and enlightening discourse on this topic.

Since the instigator has made this debate five rounds, I would like to institute an organized round structure.

Round 1: Acceptance/Greetings/Rules/Whatevs
Round 2: Opening Arguments (Neither opponent can respond to what is said in Round 2)
Round 3: Rebuttals of Opening Arguments
Round 4: Counter-Rebuttals/Defend Opening Arguments
Round 5: Concluding remarks (no new evidence or arguments, merely conclude what has already been said.

I will be arguing in this debate that The United States should institute a nationwide gun ban of all firearms, meaning that no citizen is allowed to possess a firearm of any kind (handgun, rifle, assualt rifle, shotgun, all of them) except for Law Enforcement and Military (SWAT Team, Police, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, Navy, Airforce, Army, etc.)

The United States would institute this law and all citizens would be required to travel to a government building in which they will hand over their firearms to government officials. They will have a grace period of a couple months in which they must find the time to do so. After the grace period is over, any citizen found possessing a firearm will have their firearm repossessed and serve jail time.

The United States would dispose of the firearms by disabling them, via incineration, dismantlement, etc.

Since this debate is on whether or not the US should have gun rights, we should make this debate less about the whether all guns would be banned, or whether the law could be passed, we should make this about whether it should be banned.

Thank you and I look forward to my opponent’s arguments.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for clarifying the round structure. Now for my arguments.
Right to rebel
A government can easily become corrupt, even a republic. When this happens, the people have the right to rebel. As Thomas Jefferson said,"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
Patrick Henry said,"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Alexander Hamilton said,"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." I could go on and on with similar quotes by America's founders, but I think this shows how wrong it would be to deprive citzens of their guns.



C1) Suicides

If guns were to be banned, this would greatly decrease the lives taken by suicide.

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment.” [1]

When a person possesses a gun, they are more likely to commit suicide, (3 times more likely) [2]. This is because when someone is feeling depressed, they think of the gun sitting in the closet, and a way out of their pain. This causes them to think about committing suicide, and sometimes they do. When you take away the gun from the situation, they don’t think about that way out, and are less likely to take that way out.

Suicide by firearm is also more likely to successful; more than half of all suicides are done by firearm [3] and 85% of these are successful [4]. If a gun is taken out of the situation, the troubled person will be forced to use a less lethal method. By using a less lethal method, his/her chances of successfully killing themselves in lowered drastically. Now that the person is more likely to survive the suicide attempt, they can get help and receive treatment for their depression, which cures them of it 80-90% of the time [5].

By taking away gun rights, you effectively give the victim the chance to recover and get their life back. You reduce the amount of suicides nationwide, saving millions of lives.

C2) Homicide

Enacting a ban on firearms would dramatically decrease the amount of homicides.

Firearms are a criminal’s favorite tool; easily concealed, fast, fatal and easy. No wonder of the 12,765 murders in 2012; 8,855 of them were performed with firearms, 69.4% of all homicides [6].

Taking away the murderer’s most effective weapon forces murderer’s to use a different weapon, a less effective one, making murders less effective and saving thousands of innocent lives in the process.

C3) Accidents

A firearm is an extremely dangerous object. An accidental bump, or brush of the trigger unleashes a high-powered bullet that destroys everything in its path. Firearms claim thousands of accidental deaths every year.

"In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…” [7]

Gun accidents are the worst kind of death; they are senseless, completely devoid of purpose. They leave anyone involved with the act a terrible sense of guilt that stays with them for the rest of their life. If guns were to be banned, this would never happen again.


Conclude that a ban on guns would be effective in achieving its objective; saving lives, by reducing the amount of homicides, the amount of suicides, and the amount of deaths caused by firearm accidents.

[1] "Suicide." Harvard Injury Control Research Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015. 4.

[2] Zadrozny, Brandy. "Study Finds People with Guns More At-Risk for Suicide and Homicide." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

[3] "US Methods of Suicide." Suicide Method Statistics in the USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

[4] "Lethality of Suicide Method." Means Matter. N.p., 11 Sept. 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

[5] "Save. Suicide Awareness Voices of Education." SAVE. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

[6] "Murder Victims, by Weapons Used." Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

[7] Frum, David. "Are Gun Accidents 'Very Rare'?" The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2015.
Debate Round No. 2



I do not deny the fact that many people successfully commit suidide with the help of guns. However, if guns were banned, knives would be used instead and just as effectively. [1] We can't ban knives, as they are important to carving, cooking, and many other important activities. A gun ban would not affect suicide rates.


This is the most common argument made by gun control proponents. It is also the most fun to respond to.

People use guns to kill people. Guns are also used in self-defense. People who kill people with guns are criminals. If a gun control law like the one you suggested in the first round was passed, anyone who had a gun would be a criminal. So now only criminals have guns. That would likely only increase homicide rates.


Many gun accidents happen, and this is very sad. However, you could say this about any other human right. Freedom of religion comes with societal divisions, freedom of speech comes with offensive speech, and the right to a fair trial comes with criminals getting away with crime. You could even say this about the right to life; it comes with more money the government has to spend, more carbon dioxide emissions, less space, less food, and many other things. Since America is a free country, these rights must be kept. If you don't like it, go to a different country.



Pro’s only argument was that taking away a citizen’s right to own a gun, will impede their ability to rebel against a corrupt government, and will therefore make the US corrupt. There are five problems with this.

1) In the United States we actually have a democratic-republic, which means that citizens get to vote on just about everything, meaning that the majority of Americans would have to agree with, and allow the government to become corrupt.

2) We have a separation of powers, meaning that the power that the government has is divided up among different groups (Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches). This prevents the government from getting too much power, and in effect becoming corrupt.

3) The Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches have the power to check and balance each other. If the Executive branch is becoming too powerful, the Legislative branch and Judicial branch have the ability to take away some of that power, and so on for every branch.

4) The United Nations (UN) is a peacekeeping organization that prevents war and stops corrupt government. Even if the paramount improbability of the US becoming corrupt happens, the UN has an obligation to resolve it.

5) Even if the significantly more paramount improbability that the UN cannot resolve our corruption, the people can still revolt, violently if they choose to, with every weapon or tactic available to them except firearms.

The chance that it will come to the people to have to overthrow the government is so small that the risks much outweigh the benefits. Even if it were to come to the people, what are they supposed to do against the military, with tanks, airstrikes, etc. It will likely just lead to more deaths.

Debate Round No. 3


I have a response to every reason you listed.

1, 2, and 3) This is evidently not true, as the government is currently very corrupt. The Obama administration has committed many unconstitutional acts. [1] Many times states have passed unconstitutional laws and gotten away with it. [2] Abortion is another major example. The Supreme Court ruled that it is a woman's fundamental right to be able to have an abortion. This was unconstitutional. The court's ruling put the woman's right to murder before the child's right to life. What happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? You may argue that a fetus is not a person, but that is unreasonable. There is scientific evidence that a fetus is a human and it shows all of the signs of life. [3] Anyone would agree that I am a person, you are a person, our families are people, our friends are people, and any other born human being is a person. So why would a fetus be the one exception? Why is a fetus not a person if every other human on the planet is? You may also argue that it is a "potential human" and it is not "developed enough". However, a fetus has a heartbeat, brain waves, independent movement, senses, and breathing. [4] It is definitely a human.

4) The UN has ultimately failed in its mission to prevent war and stop corrupt government. [5] Therefore, it will likely not prevent corruption in the American government.

5) You are not sure what methods rebels would use to overthrow the government, so you are not sure whether they would find a way to defeat the military. They could also take over the military, make allies within the military, or use guerrilla warfare. The 2.7 million people in the military are no match for the 270-310 million people with guns, along with possible foreign allies.

Overall, the government can be corrupt, it is corrupt, and a successful rebellion is possible.




Pro’s only rebuttal to my argument was that “if guns were banned, knives would be used instead and just as effectively.”

This is blatantly false. The most successful method of suicide involving a knife is cutting the throat, which has a 51.5% lethality rate (Guns have a 99% success rate) [1]

The Source

The ‘evidence’ that Pro uses to back up the claim is from [2]. I read the article, and what the blogger gives in support of knives being more dangerous than guns is that:

1) It is easier to kick a gun out of a hand than a knife in his kung fu class. Not everyone knows kung fu, and knowing kung fu and knowing how to kick a knife out of someone’s hand does not have to do with suicides.

2) It is easier to conceal than a gun. A gun causes a ‘bulge’, and a small folding knife cannot. Again has nothing to do with suicides.

3) That people with guns are more likely to miss the target, someone with a knife won’t miss their victim. This again, has to do with homicide, not suicides.


Pro says two things here:

Guns are used in self-defense

Pro gives no evidence for his claim that guns are used for self-defense, therefore this argument goes unwarranted and has no impact.

According to US Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, firearms were the least used self-defensive behavior, at 0.8% [3].

Only criminals will have guns

This argument goes unwarranted as well, and I dismiss it as such.

This is more of a would argument rather than a should question. Banning guns would make it more difficult for a criminal to get a hold of a firearm. And we really don’t want the victim having a gun in a crime scenario, when the criminal has the gun, the victim is more likely to give them their wallet, purse, etc. And the criminal runs off with the loot being chased by police and the victim is not harmed, other than being a bit shaken.

But when both the criminal and the victim have a gun, suddenly a situation that would have been a grab-and-run, is immediately escalated to a fatal situation, and someone is very likely to be killed. Giving the victim a gun puts both the criminal and the victim in harm’s way.

“The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage...”
-David Hemenway director of Harvard Injury Control Research Center


Pro basically concedes this argument, “If you don't like it, go to a different country.”

And then relates it to other things that have consequences as well. These subjects a neither nor relevant nor impactful.

[3] Pg.12
Debate Round No. 4


It is now time for conclusions. Remember not to read mine until after you post yours.


Con says that guns are the most common suicide method. However, if they were eliminated, people would poison themselves, jump off buildings, cut themselves with knives, or suffocate themselves. Falling and suffocation are actually more lethal than guns. [1] Con insists that gun control would reduce suicide, but this is evidently not true.


Con claims that saying guns are used in defense requires a source. I will now give him several sources to show how obvious it is. [2] Con also claims that criminals will have difficulty getting hold of a firearm if guns were banned. He apparently ignored my argument that criminals will illegally keep the guns that they have.


Apparently Con missed my point that every human right comes with some negative effects, and he essentially drops the argument by claiming that the point was irrelevant.

Right to rebel

Con has dropped this argument. Since this was the whole reason that guns should be allowed, ignoring the argument is admitting defeat.


Con has dropped my main argument that citizens have the right to rebel. Since this was the basis for my arguement, it still stands, while Con has presented no reason to ban guns.



This has been a very fun debate and I have enjoyed the ideas brought up here. Since this is my last response, I have not read my opponent’s conclusion yet, and I will conclude what has already been said in the debate. And therefore, as agreed upon, not bring up any new arguments or evidence.

In this entire debate, my opponent has only brought up one argument in favor of gun rights; rebellion. That if the US government was to become corrupt, the people will have guns to start a rebellion and take over the country. I have shown that the possibility that the US government will become corrupt is so low, that the risks that guns pose do not outweigh this one advantage that Pro proposes. The systems and regulations and foreign agencies that have been put in place after the Revolutionary War have made it that it is extremely improbable, if not impossible for the government to become corrupt. Even in the scenario that it would, what would the people be able to do against the government’s forces (Airforce, tanks, professionally trained soldiers, etc.) This will only lead to more bloodshed and deaths.

Pro has also failed to rebut the arguments that I have put forth, even conceding my “Accidents” argument. Rebutting my suicides contention by claiming that knives are just as effective as guns in suicides, which I proved is absolutely absurd. And rebutting my homicide contention by saying that guns are used in self-defense, which I revealed is the least used defensive behavior.

Again, thank you for the debate. Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 1 year ago
And the necessity for armed rebellion is commonly enough known to not need stating here. Its more commonly understood than the idea that less accidents/suicides/homicides are a necessity. I didnt hear con stating anywhere as to why those things were a necessity. He just assumed that people shouldnt have the ability to kill themselves if they wanted or that they should not be subject to the consequences of their actions in the form of accidents. Thats quite the assumption he's making there. Ive seen alot of polls on here that show peoples right to suicide having pretty heavy support. Maybe what you should be emphasizing on that source of yours is the agony column, that clearly shows gunshots to be much more humane a way to go out ... versus most of the rest.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 1 year ago
Whoa whoa whoa. Round 4 ... guns do not have 99% mortality rate. Shotguns to the head specifically have that rate. Not guns in general. Your statements youre making based on your own sources are misleading con.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Ajabi// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Firstly nay to the 7 point system - it sucks. I give the win to Con, for the simple reason that Pro does not mention his arguments in depth and doesn't show a necessity for armed rebellion. Con's argument works when s/he says that there exists a democracy and Pro seems to be arguing corruption from the basis of corrupt policies. These policies as Con imply seem to be the majority supported beliefs which leads me to think he wants to kill off the majority... One problem here was that there was no differentiation (Pro, Con did) between gun possession and concealment, and this affects Pro more because it makes his rebuttal to Con's homicide argument moot. (After all criminals carry guns illegally and it would help to have a gun at home if you're at a school shoot out). Pro can also not simply throw away Con's argument of accidents. His rebuttal seems to me odd and misfounded. Con did a better job overall. Happy to clarify.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote appears to be sufficient in explaining which arguments brought the voter to his decision, and examining the differences between how each side argued the debate. The report seems to focus solely on what one person thought was more important rather than any substantive reasons why the RFD is insufficient.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
I would have a rematch with Hayd if I could.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ajabi 1 year 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly nay to the 7 point system - it sucks. I give the win to Con, for the simple reason that Pro does not mention his arguments in depth and doesn't show a necessity for armed rebellion. Con's argument works when s/he says that there exists a democracy and Pro seems to be arguing corruption from the basis of corrupt policies. These policies as Con imply seem to be the majority supported beliefs which leads me to think he wants to kill off the majority... One problem here was that there was no differentiation (Pro, Con did) between gun possession and concealment, and this affects Pro more because it makes his rebuttal to Con's homicide argument moot. (After all criminals carry guns illegally and it would help to have a gun at home if you're at a school shoot out). Pro can also not simply throw away Con's argument of accidents. His rebuttal seems to me odd and misfounded. Con did a better job overall. Happy to clarify.