The Instigator
Daftpunkfan96
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
itsagodthing
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Banning guns would cause a fall in gun crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Daftpunkfan96
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 497 times Debate No: 69910
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Daftpunkfan96

Pro

First Round - Acceptance
Second Round - Starting arguments, reasoning for position
Third Round - Rebuttals
Fourth Round - Closing arguments/other rebuttals
itsagodthing

Con

nope because then we would smuggle guns in and take over the government you take your pick we hunt deer and bucks or we hunt the government and anyone who supports them lol
Debate Round No. 1
Daftpunkfan96

Pro

Alright, I would like to point out that I clearly stated that the first round is for ACCEPTANCE ONLY! You make the points on the SECOND round!

Now, you claim that banning guns would mean that people smuggle in guns, meaning that there would be no shootings whatsoever, and here is why you are wrong!

Banning guns could be achieved using 3 ground rules;

* Anyone who owns a gun is to be arrested
* Police and security are to give tighter checks in airports to find guns
* Police are to check anyone who looks like they could be holding a gun

These 3 simple rules would be enough to practically eradicate gun violence. And before you say a slippery slope argument like "people would smuggle in guns", then no; the 'bad' people wouldn't have them, because of the stricter rules, and the good people wouldn't carry guns because they would have no plan to anyway.
itsagodthing

Con

ok right to bear arms has been around since America was created maybe they should do back ground checks on people purchasing guns but still that would be leading up to the fight for governmental power believe me idk but I don't think all the country boys out there would appreciate that they would shoot anyone who tried to take their guns
Debate Round No. 2
Daftpunkfan96

Pro

No it wouldn't; we have hardly any guns in the UK and the government is hardly ever invaded
itsagodthing

Con

oh that explains a lot your from the UK that does make a difference as far as America goes it would be all out war if you banned guns
Debate Round No. 3
Daftpunkfan96

Pro

I was actually looking forward to having a proper and sophisticated debate, but I guess I got stuck with the butthurt 12 y/o
itsagodthing

Con

15 year old and sorry for wasting the stuck up sophisticated piece of shits time goodbye
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Daftpunkfan96 2 years ago
Daftpunkfan96
@Coo

No, they wouldn't have to go into people's homes; they would just scan places which have a higher rate of gun crime
Posted by CooCooClockofDoom 2 years ago
CooCooClockofDoom
@Daftpunkfan96
Not once in your argument do you say anything about "routine checks". You do give three "ground rules" that could solve ALL gun related crimes which are:
* Anyone who owns a gun is to be arrested
* Police and security are to give tighter checks in airports to find guns
* Police are to check anyone who looks like they could be holding a gun
not once is routine checks mentioned. Even if routine checks was on the list, the police would need a search warrant to even be able to enter a house, and that would also be an invasion of people's privacy. And even with the routine checks, people who own guns would be able to hide them easily, with things such as hidden compartments in there homes, and I doubt that police officers would take the time to search every square inch of the house. What, are they going to train dogs to "sniff out guns" next?
Posted by Daftpunkfan96 2 years ago
Daftpunkfan96
@COol "If we completely banned guns, what makes you think that criminals would follow the law? Do you think that if a law was passed banning guns, all gang members, muggers, and thieves would turn them in? No, all it would do is turn civilians into unarmed targets. Also, your solution is to have police "check anyone who looks like they could be holding a gun". So, unwarranted search and seizure based on apperance is going to solve all gun crimes? I don't think so."

Like I said, routine checks
Posted by CooCooClockofDoom 2 years ago
CooCooClockofDoom
@Daftpunkfan96 If we completely banned guns, what makes you think that criminals would follow the law? Do you think that if a law was passed banning guns, all gang members, muggers, and thieves would turn them in? No, all it would do is turn civilians into unarmed targets. Also, your solution is to have police "check anyone who looks like they could be holding a gun". So, unwarranted search and seizure based on apperance is going to solve all gun crimes? I don't think so.
Posted by Daftpunkfan96 2 years ago
Daftpunkfan96
@Doktor So, you are saying a world without guns would cause anarchy? Explain how? If we had no guns, then we would no goddamn anarchy; it just doesn't work like that.
Posted by DokTor 2 years ago
DokTor
I completely agree with Jonnykelly. Anyone who would look at this as a fight against killing of game is hilarious. The point here is the separation between a world with guns and killing or without but with anarchy. Although you do make a good point, without guns people would rebel but said in an unintelligible way. A man in the air force would have been much better in your position.
Posted by Jonnykelly 2 years ago
Jonnykelly
@itsagodthing, Your lack of respect, and your lack of seriousness are a disgrace to those of us who take this seriously. I wholeheartedly would be con on this debate, and I wish I could be in your place.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Daftpunkfan96itsagodthingTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con arguing in round 1. Spelling and Grammar goes to Pro due to Con's lack of grammatical skills. Arguments also go Pro.