The Instigator
Themoderate
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
def
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

Ban on all guns

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 5 votes the winner is...
Themoderate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 928 times Debate No: 35753
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

Themoderate

Con

New to the site and have found a passion for debating. I would like to improve my debate skills.This one is a serious, but mostly just for fun and help me improve. I would like to debate with a pro-gun ban leaning person. I will not be disrespectful or call you any names. I would like the same for my opponent. Respectful, mindful, and open minded about all things going to be said. Thank you!
def

Pro

We should ban guns as that means there will be no more gun crimes.
We have banned cocaine and there is no more cocaine in this country. Including myth, marijuana......
Drinking and driving is outlawed. I am glad I don't see on the news of drunken driving murders anymore.
This Colorado maniac purchased 10 gallons of gasoline to be part of his bomb that was setup as a trap. That excess amount of gas should have been regulated. Who needs more than a gallon of gasoline from the pump!!! We need to ban such high amount of gasoline purchase right away.
Debate Round No. 1
Themoderate

Con

First of all thank you my opponent for taking part in this debate. I will respectfully disagree with your statement. I think us, as American citizens should be able to feel protected. For many reasons such as: The right was granted in our constitution. As an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Let's say, you're walking down the street all by yourself. You're walking and come across someone trying to mug you, kidnap you, trying to harm you, or rape you and the perpetrator has a weapon. You can either fight for a struggle and increase your chances of being shot/stabbed/beaten. Another option is running away which is a higher chance of not getting away. Another is pulling out your cell phone and telling the perpetrator to hold on when I phone the police for help. Now, the most logical option is having a defense weapon on you and using that for your protection. Let's go back a few years shall we. Out in Nevada, a female college student purchased a firearm for her protection. She was a law abiding woman and citizen and left her firearm off the campus grounds since they were banned there. She was walking out to her car and she mugged, beaten, and raped. If she was carrying her firearm she could have easily scared the man away or shot him and she would never have to live with the memory of being forced upon. Also, if people say guns kill people so do cars, knife's, fists, and golf clubs because at least one of those things has been in a crime. Also, if you have a family and if someone breaks into your residence, you have the right to defend yourself and your family. Police yes, are there for a reason, but calling them is not always the best thing because the time between you and the perpetrator and the police getting there damage can be done. It only takes a split second for someone to die of a wound. Also, if guns were banned, people can still get access to them. Most drugs are outlawed and banned right? Well people still use cocaine, heroin, crack, meth, and some states ban marijuana including the ban of medical. When people want those things, they go to a dealer, pay for them and use them. Now, we already have illegal firearm sales going on all over the country. For drunk drivers, I see them on the news all the time, most of the time they result in drunk driving deaths. Well, this about guns and not firearms and I can see your point though but let's stay on the topic here. Most firearm crime cases are them being obtained illegally. Most of them are. If guns kill people then cars make people drive drunk, pencils misspell words, and spoons make people fat. I thank you for this round to hope to hear back from you.
def

Pro

In light of the carnage in Newton, I wish people on both sides - but especially the gun advocates - would stop talking right now about crime and criminals. In order to take one positive step forward, to save lives when there is a future incident, Americans need to take measures to eradicate ALL semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines from the marketplace and from public arsenals. It won't happen in a day but surely the logic can be seen that the less of these weapons and magazines there are, the less carnage there will be. It isn't about solving violent crime, it's about stopping the massacres.
Debate Round No. 2
Themoderate

Con

I would like to apologize, as I made a error in my last debate saying "firearms" but what I meant to say was bombs. Just in case of any confusion. Yes, Aurora CO and Newton was heartbreaking and very damaging and I do support full back round checks on mental stance. The mentally ill should not be allowed to own a gun. But, now should that mean a strip of semi-automatic weapons to law abiding and responsible gun citizens and owners? I personally, don't believe so. I mean, in Chicago, shows it is proof positive it fails. The same with DC, NYC and any other strict gun control region. I hear about gun violence in Chicago, quite a lot. Yes, semi-automatics are made to fire quite rapidly, but when it comes to it I would feel more comfortable using a weapon that fires that much against someone who is threatening my life than use a single shot. The nation"s total violent crime rate peaked in 1991. Since then, it has decreased 49%, to a 41 year low, including a 52% drop in the nation"s murder rate, to a 48-year low"nearly the lowest point in American history.3 Meanwhile, the number of the most popular firearm that gun control supporters call an "assault weapon""the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle"has risen by 3.5 million, the number of all semi-automatic firearms has risen by about 50 million, and the total number of privately-owned firearms has risen by over 120 million.4 The number of new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds has risen by many tens of millions.5. The second amendment in the bill of rights provides the people provides that the right of the people to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed. That is why the senior senator of California has failed twice, to pass the bill. Semi-automatics and guns are the problem, people are the problem in this world. Like I said, Chicago, Illinois has had the strictest gun control laws in America and has acted in the past the past few years and it twice as likely to be killed in Chicago than the Afgani war. For the past 11 years and 8 months 2,166 have been killed. Now in only years Chicago 4,265 people have been killed and 3,371 of them from being shot. Is that something we want to model our state laws after? Now, even though 3,371, only 38 were killed with a rifle if we do the math that is barely 1 percent. 98% were killed with handguns. So creating gun control legislation that targets assault riffles has statistically proven has only to weed out 1% if you're lucky. I'd also like to state that none of the guns in this case in Chicago were either registered or licensed for people to use them. Thus, simply restricting guns will not stop criminals. In my last debate, I stated if they want them they will find a illegal dealers to get them. Restricting guns won't stop criminals from harming others in general. Also, in China, the same day as Sandy Hook on December 14th a man stabbed 22 children and 1 adult. When my opponent states that it's about stopping massacres, gun's are not the only thing that are in massacres, or at least that what you made it sound intended to be. That China spree sounded like a massacre. I would just like to point out that people seem to think police are the only one's who should be able to carry those weapons. Well, yes they should be carrying those weapons, but us as citizens should be able to carry those because we face the same things they do. They higher their chances of it but people face danger everyday. It's all over the news. More gun crimes have been committed without the usage of semi-automatics. But this debate isn't just about semi-automatics, it's about all guns in general. Gun violence has actually gone down with less gun control. It was at its peak in 1991 but when Bill Clinton came into office into 1993 it has actually gone down. That is why I don't see the need for gun control bans. I thank you again, for joining me in this debate.
def

Pro

We tell the people that guns are banned and I know those hardened criminals will understand and comply and register their weapons the same day the announcement is made. And we should proudly put signs on our windows and front lawn indicating that we are anti-gun and you may not bring guns into our homes as we don't allow them here. The Cine mark theater where this attack happened had those signs and policies clearly posted. This one criminal must have been illiterate to have missed it. I know all criminals after seeing those signs would have known to leave their guns at home.
Sure federal buildings are well protected. But places like schools, churches and many other places where laws clearly state that guns are not allowed have never been targets of mass murders. If I was crazy and knew of places where guns are banned, that is the last place I would target knowing that my gun would cease to function as soon as I get there and wait for the police to come by after a few minutes.
Listen to people like Mayor Bloomberg. We should all become public officials and receive around the clock protection and have enough money to hire our own protection while taking guns out of only the law abiding citizens. His home address is proudly listed and people know that there are no guns there because he is against all guns.
Look to the rest of the world like peaceful UK with very strict gun laws. Your family is sitting peacefully at home and some thug comes in to rob you with a big knife. They know you don't have a gun. What is there to worry about?
If a home invader put a gun down on a table and told you that in 1 minute he is going to shoot your baby, you wouldn't pick up that gun and use it because you are proudly anti-gun mom.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
Thank you for the kind words!
Posted by ThePhilosopherRuler 3 years ago
ThePhilosopherRuler
I feel a little confused here? What happened to 'Def's concluding arguement, I can't decide if he was jokingly agreeing, being sarcastic or whether he lost track and began argueing 'against' gun control?.
I would easily say 'Themoderate' won this arguement. I would love to have taken part. I commend you on your attitude though, debating is an engaging activity and too many people display horrid manners and resort to name calling. always good to see when people are so polite.
Posted by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
Could use some votes for this debate please!
Posted by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
I would have debated you, but unfortunately, someone beat you to it.
Posted by shoulderbug 3 years ago
shoulderbug
I might take it up. Do you mean 'ban on all guns' as 'ban on all civilian possession of guns'? Can we also agree that recreational usage of guns can be allowed but must be regulated and controlled, and is a separate issue altogether?
Posted by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
I appreciate your feedback. That is also a big topic, but I see a lot of people wanting them all gone and saying that's what we have the police for.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Just a little advice, It will be hard to get someone to accept a ban on all guns. If you worded it to semi auto, or full auto you may get some takers
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
ThemoderatedefTied
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: Arguments to CON because he actually made an argument. If I could make a suggestion regarding formatting, do some. Some paragraphs and perhaps some subheadings will both make the debate easier to read, but also to reference when your opponent is rebutting your argument.
Vote Placed by Coinsruledude 3 years ago
Coinsruledude
ThemoderatedefTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Arguments to Con, because Pro's 'arguments' were so ridiculous that it kind of looks like he was trolling.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
ThemoderatedefTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, let's say that guns shouldn't really be banned, but Pro was right about how banning guns would prevent gun crimes. Let's say that conduct points, spelling/grammar and convincing arguments points go to Pro. Reliable sources points go to nobody, since none of them used sources.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
ThemoderatedefTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made nothing but a liberal rhetoric, emotion based argument, if you could call it an argument at all.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
ThemoderatedefTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Con was able to prove with better data and information how guns are bad which Pro could not refute.