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

Banning Guns

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/19/2013 Category: News
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,612 times Debate No: 31456
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Some people in this world believe we should ban guns from the streets and from honest people who don't use them to do harm. I saw this is a load of crap, i mean its not like banning guns is gonna make all the criminals give up there guns. And besides its not like they got them legally anyway. Taking away guns would just endanger more people because they wouldn't have a way to protect themselves and fight back.


I accept Con's challenge, and I hope this will be a very informative and entertaining debate.

First off, allow me to summarize Con's argument into a single resolution: "Banning guns is wrong because you take away gun ownership from responsible citizens, and criminals will obtain guns anyway".

My resolution is this: "Banning guns would improve society because widespread gun ownership would not actually lower crime rates, but provoke an arms race between citizens and criminals, and lead to needless deaths from civilian altercations."
Debate Round No. 1


Hence, that's why people should take training on how to handle a gun, and not just blindly rush out an buy a gun. I agree with the back ground checks and everything, but Obama is going to far in wanting to completely ban guns. I think it would lower the crime rate a little bit, because criminals wouldn't be able to walk anywhere and so "let hit these guys, there completely defenseless" but if they knew people were carrying guns, Thad be less willing to rob some place


I'd like to expand a bit from my point of view on your last statement, which reads, "...but if they knew people were carrying guns, they'd be less willing to rob some place".

First off, I'd like to debunk a myth conservative media has been telling you: there really is no correlation between lax gun policy and crime rate. Places such as Israel, which you have been told has an essentially no holds barred policy on gun ownership, actually have much stricter gun laws than you may believe. For instance, in an article in the Washington Post (source link below), it reads "...Israel laws, Rosenbaum [an American scholar] writes, 'are designed to keep amateurs from carrying guns in the street - even amateurs who have served 3 years in the army'" [1]. Israel has much lower crime rates than the US, but not because of its lax gun policy, but rather, its tendency to leave guns in the hands of professionals: police, soldiers, hunters, etc.

Also, if citizens carried guns, and possible criminals were essentially out-gunned by the public, they wouldn't just roll over and die out; they'd probably look for bigger, stronger, more modernized weaponry to outclass any firearm citizens would carry on their person. Then, it'd just turn into a legally questionable arms race between gun-owning citizens and criminals, each trying to overpower the other with superior weaponry. Then, the police would have to overpower both of them just to keep civilian life civil; this means there'd be enhanced police vehicles, advanced firearms, more equipment like breaching charges, grenades, tear/poison gas, flashbangs, etc. being used on civilians and criminals in public, which means someone is bound to get caught in the crossfire, innocent lives will be lost.

Then, there's the problem of making sure each citizen with a gun would actually act responsible with their newly acquired toys. Small, drunken arguments could lead to colossal shootouts just because some gun-toting badass wants to show his machismo to others. Then there's the idea that maybe gun-wielding civilians wouldn't be ready to actually kill someone who is a danger to others. If they aren't ready to take a life, then there really is no use for guns to be in the hands of many civilians, since they, meaning the civilians, may end up just running away or finding help. Here's one of the many cases where a regular citizen didn't end up saving the day, "In 2008, a gunman who killed two and wounded two others was taken out by another patron in the bar, who was carrying with a valid permit. But this was no regular Joe with a concealed handgun: The vigilante, who was not charged after authorities determined he'd committed a justifiable homicide, was a US Marine" [2].

Debate Round No. 2


Agreeable lol, but still, completely banning guns is BS, i just wanted to see who would argue with this


So, just because you think that banning firearms is BS, it's automatically BS, and therefore wrong?

I have held up my end of the BoP, my opponent has failed to do so. Con has also agreed on my position based upon his last response, something which he obviously did not agree with prior to this debate.

Thus, he concedes defeat, vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by masterdebater6969 4 years ago
guns are bad.. mm kay... HA JK!
Posted by Burns 4 years ago
Obama doesn't want to take away all guns. He wants comprehensive background checks, limit on mag capacity to 10 rounds, and a ban on some assault weapons such as the one used at New Town and the Colorado theater shooting. the 2nd amendment and gun control aren't mutually exclusive.
Posted by Rain231 4 years ago
It is our second amendment right to bear arms
Posted by Didar 4 years ago
People kill people, but guns help. The argument that "it is only because of the evil inside people that they ever shoot innocent civilians" is wrong. The line between good and evil is fragile, and the line is crossed by both sides. The fact that guns allow more power to any individual only ensures that someone gets shot in the end. Rarely do you hear about a person who used a knife or bare fists to commit mass murders. All guns should be banned to reduce the power over others, whether you are the good guy or the bad.
Posted by TheSlenderMan 4 years ago
Con, Please do not post on this site unless you are prepared to debate. Do NOT use statements like, "I just wanted to see you debate this." That wastes everyones time.
If you want to pull crap like that go to YouTube comments along with all the irrational thirteen year olds.

This site is wonderfull. It's where mature intellectual people can come and debate and where we can all learn something. It's people who do things like this that will eventually turn this site into just another immature forum.

So again, Do NOT pull crap like this.
Posted by timothy.dorn 4 years ago
Also I would like to make a point, police rarely save the day. Typically police just take photos of your dead corpse, and fill out paperwork after you're already done and look for the criminal who committed the crime.

For police to be able to stop crimes they would have to be everywhere, that I am not for in any way . Also I am not for having the military takeover my town so that they could prevent every possible crime. I would rather take my chances with my gun.

I feel that the major problem is that people take the rights that they have for granted and are willing to give up some for a chance at some unreasonable safety. People should take the rights that they were given with much respect, not everywhere are people guaranteed rights. You personally might not like the mall, but if you allow them to take one away then that means you have given the government the right to take away rights.

Everyone who is afraid of guns should go to a range, try shooting. Get rid of that fear. You live in a great country where you have rights that have been given to you.

I would like to represent the person on the con side, even though I don't respect the fact that he appears to also be the person on the pro side.
Posted by timothy.dorn 4 years ago
This wasn't a debate. I can't vote for the person on the con side because he clearly lost as this wasn't a real debate. I would've mentioned that a gun can be manufactured in just about any basement in which the owner has a lathe and a CNC machine. These machines are not expensive, and with a little training just about anyone could manufacture a gun. Ammunition is made even easier, because once you have a machine that can make a gun, you can make the dies for casings, and molds that make bullets. Therefor, you would have to ban all gunpowder and anything that could be made into a gunpowder-like substance. This would open up a huge black market for criminals that would be in the business of making illegal guns, what a scary idea that is. Due to the fact that the criminals would now be the only people with guns, there would be no defense. You may say no, but then you must have a logical explanation for why the drug war is such a failure. Guns are Pandora's box, it's open, deal with it. We have two choices, do we Vehic do we allow only the government who has constantly been revealed to be run by liars and thieves "criminals" be the only ones in control of guns, or do we allow every law-abiding citizen to partake in that privilege?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 4 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It was REALLY obvious.