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

Civilians Should Not Be Able to Own Guns of Any Kind

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 373 times Debate No: 85223
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I thank you in advance for choosing to go against me in this debate.
The format of the debate is thus:
1. Acceptance
2. First Argument
3. Refutation of opponent and second argument
4. Refutation of opponent, third argument and conclusion.

Please back up all statistical claims with reliable and unbiased sources(not any random website).


I accept this challenge
Debate Round No. 1


Guns allow people to defend themselves, both from the State and from each other.

Without guns in the hands of the people they are extremely vulnerable to any kind of tyrannical government. Note that every genocide in the past century has been preceded by efforts to disarm the population. Adolf Hitler said at a dinner talk on April 11 1942: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:
"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
There have been many cases in history where a gun bearing people have managed to overturn a tyrannical and abusing government. For example, during the 18th Century the undemocratic British refused the Americans a vote in parliament and imposed heavy taxes. Thanks to their guns they were able to win independence for themselves.

Even today there are still many Hitlers. Take the corrupt governments in North Korea, China, arguably Russia, South East Asia, Somalia, Nigeria, Kenya, South America. We cannot even guarantee that the West will experience its own dictators (like Donald Trump). If the people are defenceless and there are enough mindless sheep among the masses, then there will be nothing to stop them.

The right to overthrow an abusive government that does not represent the people is extremely fundamental. However, guns also bring other natural and God given rights. For example, do I have the right to protect myself and my family from a man who kicks down my door and threatens to kill them? Does a woman have the right to defend herself from a gang of rapists? And no, people cannot defend themselves without guns. Look at the above example. A woman attacked by three rapists naturally needs a firearm to defend herself.

I end my argument with this final quote from Adolf Hitler, just to show that the people will always need defending.

"To conquer a nation first disarm its citizens."

Next I shall show how guns do not cause crime.


These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
Debate Round No. 2


You say that the Constitution does not necessarily condone gun ownership. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.

Statistics prove that there is no correlation between crime and gun ownership. For example, ( proves that Honduras has the highest homicide rate in the world, even though it has extremely restrictive gun laws that do not allow citizens to carry guns without permission of local authorities. Switzerland, however, has an extremely low crime rate at 0.7 per one hundred thousand citizens, even though it requires for all adult males to own guns. In Israel some teachers carry assault rifles, and there are no massacres there.

This interactive map( shows how thousands of crimes each year are halted by gun carrying civilians. Gun laws will only take away guns from law abiding citizens who are not going to use their guns for crime. After all, by definition criminals will not follow the new gun laws and will be able to freely kill if they can manage to evade the outnumbered policemen.

In conclusion, guns do not cause crime. In fact, they are a great help in reducing it. Next I shall give an overview of all my points and conclude.


Look guns are bad because they just are.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm afraid it's just not that simple. Here's a summary of my points.

-Self defense is a natural right and only can be achieved by guns(for example, a woman attacked by three men naturally needs a gun to defend herself).

- If the main body of the people does not have guns the government can do whatever it likes(for example Hitler disarming the Jews before the Holocaust).

-There are many incidents where citizens with guns stop a criminal(see my first argument for source).

-In America the mass shootings are not the fault of the guns but of the social problems(poverty, lack of equality and education, etc.).

-In Switzerland all adult males are required to have guns but they have the lowest homicide rate on Earth while Honduras bans guns(without permission from the authorities) and they have the highest crime.

In conclusion, banning guns would remove a fundamental right(self defense) while rendering the people powerless against both the government and criminals. I have shown that guns are not the cause of crime.


Niall_McGee27 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Zapax 8 months ago
Okay... Not the best argument there pro.
Posted by Reformist 8 months ago
Hes failing this debate on purpose to make the gun control side look stupid
Posted by trippmane 9 months ago
"Shall not be infringed"
Posted by ascrub 9 months ago
I can feel this one is going to be a doozy..
Posted by CoolDebates421 9 months ago
I'm not sure, it can cause danger, or it can be used for self defense.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.