The Instigator
spencerd
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Banning Guns

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 40639
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

spencerd

Con

Placing a ban on firearms will not save lives. Neither will gun free zones.
Mikal

Pro

I accept this debate under the resolution presented.

I am against placing a ban on guns and think it will accomplish much of nothing. The resolution however is that

" Placing a ban on firearms will not save lives. Neither will gun free zones. "

I will argue for the fact, that banning guns could possibly save lives. We just must admit that the amount of lives that are saved from it, are not worth the efforts of banning them. Even if a ban on guns saved one life, cons resolution is false. I accept and will argue for the fact that banning guns could possibly save lives.
Debate Round No. 1
spencerd

Con

spencerd forfeited this round.
Mikal

Pro

Since I think my adversary may FF all rounds, I will wait to the last round or until he responds to post my contentions
Debate Round No. 2
spencerd

Con

spencerd forfeited this round.
Mikal

Pro

I do not think my adversary will post an argument therefore I will wait to later to post a contention. No point in building a huge argument if every round is going to be ffed.
Debate Round No. 3
spencerd

Con

spencerd forfeited this round.
Mikal

Pro

I will wait to the last round to try and present a small case due to non stop ffs
Debate Round No. 4
spencerd

Con

spencerd forfeited this round.
Mikal

Pro

This will be short seeing as how my adversary FFed all rounds.

he claims and I quote

"Placing a Ban on firearms will not save lives, nether will gun free zones"

This is the resolution and is entirely false.

What my adversary could have claimed is the amount of lives that will be saved by a ban on firearms is not worth the cost of implementing it. That is entirely a true statement, but if one life is saved by implementing a ban on fire arms his resolution is false.

With more than 300,000,000 guns in civilian ownership in the USA[1], it is safe to assume that if a hypothetical ban were to occur and a buy back were implemented. One gun that was turned back in, would probably stop the death of a civilian. This is just basic logic. If you decrease the number of hand guns in circulation, and the number that is being produced. It will decrease gun deaths. Therefore Cons resolution is false.

He phrased this horribly though. The issue is that implementing Gun control like this is not effective. It will prevent deaths but not enough deaths that it is worth of trying to implement it practically.

[1] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
spencerdMikalTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff'd the whole debate. Pro put forth an argument and sourced it. I wanted to suggest Pro read this article: http://www.cracked.com/article_20724_5-laws-that-made-sense-paper-and-disasters-in-reality.html It mentions Gun Buybacks.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
spencerdMikalTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
spencerdMikalTied
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: FF