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

DDO Champions League Debate: Gun Ban

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 477 times Debate No: 89850
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)




Full Resolution: The USFG Should Ban Private Ownership of Firearms.


This is a debate for the champions league. Thank you to airmax for hosting the tournament and to my opponent's team for their acceptance.

This is a team debate! Representing the Pro side we have

- Famousdebater (team captain)
- FortisAnimi
- Bob13

Representing the Con team we have

- Lannan13 (team captain)
- Briannj17
- CodingSource

The rules of the debate are very clearly set out by airmax. This debate must be hosted by me since my opponent's team is at (@ as depited in airmax's thread) our team. The burden of proof must be shared as there is no acceptance round and my opponent must provide something in the first round. Whilst it is disputable whether or not the burden of proof is shared in this instance, the set out of the debate means that it must be this way, apologies in advance.


1 - No Kritiks
2 - No semantics
3 - The burden of proof is shared
4 - By accepting the debate you accept the definitions presented
5 - There is no acceptance round, you must argue in the first round
6 - No source wars (you are allowed to critique sources but don't make that the focus of the debate)
7 - No trolling
8 - No forfeiture
9 - No plagiarism
10 - Failure to abide by the rules, definitions (below) and the full resolution means that all points will automatically be awarded in the person that didn't violate the rules' favor.


USFG - United States Federal Government
Should - used to express obligation or desirability.
Ban - to legally prohibit
Private - belonging to an individual person, company, or interest, as opposed to belonging to a government.
Ownership - the act, state, or right of possessing something.
Firearms - a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder.

Good luck to all participants!



a) Over the period of 30 years we will gradually increase gun restrictions, this way the impact of an immediate change to a gun ban from the current system would be mitigated.

b) After 30 years gun usage should be extremely restricted. At this point a change from the current point of restriction to a ban will be so small that the change will create minimal concern and anger. Furthermore there will be no major impacts to gun culture in the US.

Since my counterplan ultimately leads to a gun ban it is still sufficient to fulfill my burden since my burden requires me to prove that guns should be banned and under my plan guns are still being banned, just over a long period of time. Furthermore, it also reduces the negative response that would occur if a gun ban was immediately introduced at this point in time. We can also psychologically observe that radical change is objectively worse than gradual change which our plan covers and bypasses [1].


Moral realism ought to be conceded by our opponent’s as the metaethical framework for this debate as both of our cases are contingent on it’s existence.

Our normative ethical framework for this debate will be based on the ideology of individualism which holds the life of the individual within society to be morally important [14]. This means that if we successfully manage to prove that guns result in causing more deaths than it saves then our burden is fulfilled. Our opponent’s burden will be to prove that guns save more lives than they kill meaning that under the framework of individualism, lives will be saved and preserved as opposed to being lost.

This framework ought to accepted by voters for the reason that the primary reason as to why guns are currently legal in the US is because they’re function is to save lives and to ultimately protect people [15]. If we manage to prove that the function of guns isn’t working and is actually resulting in more people dying (as opposed to less people dying) then this is a valid and reasonable point which allows us to affirm on the basis that the primary reason that guns are legal is failing.

Our framework is affirmed. And now in our contentions we wish to prove that guns, overall are negative under the individualistic framework by applying the murder rate to the individualistic equation and by debunking the myth of self defense.

The Murder Rate

All we need to do is analyze this graph to understand that the murder rate via guns in the US is significantly higher than we need it to be.

uploaded image


The trend is evidence. In Japan there is a full gun ban [3](for citizens which coincides with the resolution) and Japan has the lowest gun related murders as shown on the graph. South Korea has ‘one of the most restrictive gun policies in the developed world,’ [2]. South Korea is the second least on the map. In Iceland guns are only allowed for target shooting and you need a special license for this. All other guns are strictly forbidden in all circumstances [4]. The list goes on and it surprisingly goes almost completely through the list in order from the most gun restrictions to the least. There are, of course, a view fluctuations but there are few. The correlation is clear, the countries the more restriction on guns, the less deaths. The countries with complete bans on citizens have gun deaths of extremely low quantity. The less guns, the less deaths.

Furthermore, multiple reliable studies have shown that guns result in death. Harvard T.H Chan, School of Public Health, concluded from their studies,

“a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.” [5]

In the US there were 372 mass shootings, 64 of which were school shootings [6]. This ultimately means that babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, adolescents, adults and the elderly are being killed by guns. 13 toddlers accidentally killed themselves in 2015; 18 injured themselves; 10 injured other people and 2 killed other people.

In the United Kingdom they have a complete gun ban for citizens, which is what I am affirming [7]. In the UK the youngest person to ever kill somebody in recorded history has been 12 [8]. In 2015 alone 2 toddlers killed other people. The comparison is notable, in one year two toddlers kill two people (as a result of guns) which is something that has never happened in the history of the UK (a country with guns banned).

Accidents and Consequences

15,000 to 19,000 deaths are as a result of accidents in the United States [11]. Causing a gun related accident and being the person responsible means that you could suffer from mental health problems.

Proceeding an accidental shooting with a gun, suffering from mental health problems is not uncommon [12]. By banning guns, you make virtually impossible to kill somebody accidentally since accidents are not committed by murderers who may have illegal guns, they are usually committed by people with legal guns who are law abiding citizens (hence why they suffer from mental health problems afterwards in most cases).

Self Defense

One of the most common arguments made by gun advocates is the idea that guns are necessary for the act of self defense. According to the Violence Policy Center [16], the FBI reports that in the year of 2013 there were only 211 justifiable homicides involving private citizens using a firearm. To put this statistic into perspective, there were 7,838 criminal gun homicides in the nation in the year of 2013. There is a 37:1 criminal homicide to self defense ratio. A study performed by the National Crime Victimization Survey [17] revealed that you have a %10.9 chance of sustaining injury while using a gun in self defense, whereas if no action was taken at all you have an %11 chance of sustaining bodily harm. It seems to me that this data proves our notion that reducing the amount of guns, and eventually banning the ownership of firearms, will be beneficial to society as a whole, given the fact that criminal homicides completely outnumber the citizen’s use of self defense.


Harvard school of Public Health [18] has determined a strong and fatal link between guns and suicide. Roughly 30,000 yearly suicides occur as a result of guns. Whilst it is arguable that people that are suicidal will attempt to commit suicide with, or without a gun, many suicide attempts fail whereas very few people are able to survive gun blasts [18]. This significantly increases the chances of suicidal success which is not a good thing because not only is it a violation of the individualistic framework but it is also the cause of problems that stretch beyond the debate framework. The majority of people that attempt to commit suicide and fail have said that they regret their decision to commit suicide and are grateful and thankful that they survived [19]. Given that guns increase the chances of suicide as well as the probability of people committing it we can see that not only is this a violation of the framework but it is also unnecessarily taking away people’s lives when in reality we can observe that most people that survive attempt suicide are happy that they lived.


We have shown that individualism is the best perspective to view this debate upon. We have also shown the high death statistics caused by guns (which is a clear violation of individualism). Whilst I do have some more points (as the reasons to ban guns are endless), We believe that we have said enough to support our side in the debate with the arguments that we have presented. Ergo, you ought to vote in our favor. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro!




















Debate Round No. 1


Sure as shooting, it's time to debate.

Gun Control Increases Crime

For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls."

s://; alt="" width="427" height="332" />

This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. "Where is the United States on this graph?" you may be asking. It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates.

The Reason why Gun Control Does not Deter Crime

Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime still manage to use weapons like guns, knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide")

Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researchers Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight
In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002.

Americans Have a Justifiable Right to own Guns

The above evidence goes to show how banning ownership of guns will have a negative effect on crime. Now how will it affect the people who rely on guns in everyday living? The people living in the mountains,forests, anywhere where hunting with guns is an essential part of life. People rely on guns not only for a feeling of security and protection but to hunt for food. Guns are essential in those “neck of the woods” and taking the food and protection away from them is unconstitutional.

Next the fact of the matter is, guns save more people than they kill. Research shows that law abiding citizens use guns up to 2.5million times in a year for self defense.
[Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995)]
That makes it, give or take, 80 times more likely for a gun to defend lives than take lives.

The state of Vermont and Mexico; Undeniable evidence on how Gun bans have a negative effect on crime

You can see evidence that gun control laws either have no effect or cause more crime when you look at the state of Vermont which has one of the most permissive gun laws in North America.

Yet Vermont is the safest state to live in.

Next take a look at the country of Mexico which has some of the strickest gun laws in the world which has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

It is obvious that criminals will always find ways to keep guns and a gun ban although may be great theoretically, the only people that will give them up are the law abiding citizens and the criminals will keep their guns leaving everybody else defenseless.

In conclusion...

My whole argument is to prove that guns keep people safe and gun bans are a danger to society. And since I have shown this, gun bans should not be implemented in the United States of America. I look forward to my opponants response.



OBV1: This debate is on the subject on a gun ban. Not gun control. The two are mutually exclusive and the effects, impacts and potential consequences as a result of them are incredibly different [1][2]. Therefore our opponent’s references to the failures of gun control in regards to increased crime, and having no positive effect of crime are largely irrelevant in negating our portion of the BOP. In a society with gun control there are ultimately still guns in existence and therefore it is extremely different to a society without any guns entirely. This debate is on a gun ban - the resolution is very clear in stating so.

OBV2: My opponent does not provide an alternative framework. This means that voters ought to be automatically conceding to my framework. My opponent cannot present an alternative framework in the rebuttals round, meaning that he ought to concede to my framework. If he doesn’t concede the framework and attempts to refute it then you still ought to be presuming Pro on the framework due to the fact that there is no framework set up by my opponent.

Gun Control Increases Crime

I generally agree with my opponent here. This is why I specifically chose to debate a gun ban as opposed to gun control.

As you will notice in my initial contention on the murder rate, you’ll notice that when observing countries with gun bans the result is very different compared to gun control.

I acknowledge that gun control is mentioned as a part of our plan, however our BOP requires us to prove that guns should be banned, our opponent’s is to prove that guns shouldn’t be banned. This round is for initial argument which are used to advance side’s burden. By attacking gun control my opponent’s burden isn’t advanced at all. We argue that the outcome of the counterplan (ie. the gun ban) ought to be implemented even at the expense of having a few years of gun control due to the fact that we need to prove that a gun ban ought to be implemented in the US which will still be achieved (even at expense of some gun control required before reaching the inevitable outcome).

Gun Control Doesn’t Deter Crime

This, once again, can be refuted by the comments made above. Regardless, given that my opponent uses some logic to advance his burden I’ll make a quick rebuttal on the point.

Firstly, this argument fails under the framework as all it is doing here is showing increasing crime rates. The individualistic framework weighs lives, which, in this debate is all that we should be considering here (as our opponents make NO attempt to dispute this with a counter-framework). Given that all our opponent’s show here is that crime will not be deterred, this argument is ultimately irrelevant as it makes no attempt to show lives being lost - only that crimes are being committed.

Furthermore, even if my opponent’s argument was even remotely relevant to the framework it still creates a weak correlation between crime and gun control / gun bans. It assumes that gun control/bans are the reason for crime sometimes increasing. It fails to consider many factors. In regards to the UK which my opponent presents as an example, in the same year in the UK - labour was elected (causing large controversy), tobacco advertising at sporting events was banned, the British empire officially ended, Britain handed over their territory of Hong Kong back, etc. [3]. All of these decisions were deemed unpopular by many and resulted in attacks and crime increases as a result of them - guns are not exclusively the problem. My opponent and his source never manage to successfully prove that guns are the reason for this crime increase - it is merely assumed.

The Right To Bear Arms

Voters ought to dismiss this argument (at least the beginning of it) as it is completely irrelevant to the debate framework set up. There is no causal link between the right to bear arms and individual lives being lost or saved. For this reason voters ought to dismiss the beginning of this contention as irrelevant. My opponent speaks of necessity for guns in hunting, etc. This is largely irrelevant as the full resolution in R1 clearly states that we are banning the private ownership of firearms not publically funded or owned firearms. Guns will be allowed for hunting for food as this is often official and is therefore not private in all instances.

My opponent then makes a more relevant argument which does have an impact upon the framework. This regards gun saving lives. My opponent begins by citing an out of date source from 21 years ago as to why guns are bad. This is an incredibly poor and deceptive usage of sources. We are talking about whether or not a gun ban will be implemented now. Murder rates, suicide rate, beliefs, government's, policies, comparisons, etc. have all changed since 1995. We should be analyzing data from 2015 onwards. Even data from 2014 is questionable due to the changes that have occurred since then. [4]

My opponent’s next source is from 2014. This is two years out of date. My opponent is using information from 2 years ago. And whilst my opponent’s questionable data does suggest that there have been 1589 uses of guns for self defense it is important to note that there have been 1602 accidental shootings too (according my opponent’s own source). Which means if we are weighing this under the individualistic framework of lives, we can conclude that even if we accept my opponent’s sources, voters are still presuming Pro here.

Vermont and Mexico

In Vermont my opponent commits a similar logical fallacy to before. When looking at crime rates you can’t analyze one factor. You’ve got to consider poverty level, degree of urbanisation, population, employment levels, tourism, jobs availability, etc. If this debate were about whether or not tourism should be banned my opponent could have made a the same argument and said that we should look at Vermont as an example due to its low crime rates. This is the problem. My opponent could have drawn the possibilities from a hat and found some way to connect it to low crime and Vermont. Unless my opponent is able to prove that the reason for crime being so low is because of the guns laws then voters should view this argument as invalid.

The same response as above applies to Mexico, in fact crime rates in Mexico are directly linked with and are almost always connoted with the drug crisis in Mexico [5][6]. My opponent just shows that Mexico has strict gun laws and then shows that they have high crime and instantly assumes that they are interconnected in some way. This is illogical logic as I have proven above. On the other hand, I provide objective reasoning alongside sources to prove that Mexico’s drug crisis is likely to be the problem of such high crime rates.


Most of my opponent’s arguments are completely irrelevant to the debate framework and since they provide no alternative framework in their arguments voters must assume my framework as the correct framework for this debate. Therefore under this premise most of my opponent’s arguments are negated by default. I have also (unnecessarily) refuted them just to reinforce the fact that my opponent’s burden is not fulfilled; that the resolution is affirmed and that voter’s ought to be presuming Pro at this point in the debate. With that I hand it back over to Con.







Debate Round No. 2


Briannj17 forfeited this round.


Extend. Since our arguments are completely unchallenged this is a clear and objective vote for the affirmative case. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by famousdebater 5 months ago
Yes, I'm aware but you need a legitimate reason. Guns are incredibly restricted in the UK and are not accessible to any citizens. I live in the United Kingdom and am incredibly informed of the laws regarding guns and I assure you that I know more about it than you do.
Posted by artshulke 5 months ago

Are you aware that the UK does not ban guns completely? You can still own double barrel shotguns with a shotgun certificate and rifle with a firearms certificate.

Wow. Somebody has to tell all these British citizens that owning any gun is banned: /s
Posted by famousdebater 5 months ago
Ah yes. I said that have a complete ban on guns **for citizens**.
Posted by artshulke 5 months ago
No, I am referring to you. You claim that the UK firearm homicide rate is low because it bans a lot of guns. The only problem is that if you look at when the bans were introduced and the years pre-ban and post-ban you see an INCREASE in firearm homicides.
Posted by famousdebater 5 months ago
Posted by famousdebater 5 months ago
So were you talking to Pro (me) or Con (Brainnj17)?
Posted by artshulke 5 months ago
So at best the handgun ban was completely useless, and at worst it increased crime. My personal theory? The reason why firearm homicides did not declne following the handgun ban was because the people who owned them were licensed and vetted throughly, and that they had to store their handguns in a bolted safe. Handguns stolen from legal owners only made up a very small percentage of firearms used in the commission of a crime in England. The vast majority of handguns used in crime in the UK are smuggled in from mainland Europe.
Posted by famousdebater 5 months ago
The only person that mentions the UK in their constructive was Con so I assume this is who you are addressing. Am I correct?
Posted by artshulke 5 months ago
Dude, you are so bad at debating it isn't even funny.

You are moving the goalposts. You argued for a ban on guns. A handgun ban is a ban on a type of gun. For the record the UK does not ban all guns. You can still acquire shotguns if you are part of a shooting club or a hunter, you can also acquire rifles.

Given the fact that handguns are the type of gun used in the vast majority of gun homicides in the US and the UK. In the US only 300 or so gun homicides are committed with rifles not handguns according to the FBI. To put it simply, rifles and shotguns are used to murder far, far less than handguns which make up the vast majority of firearm homicides.

Thus a handgun ban would theoretically have by far the largest impact on firearm homicide rates, and a ban on them would reduce the vast majority of gun homicides.

But this was not the case in the UK, Once handguns were banned in 1997 and confiscated from 50,000 legal law abiding licensed firearm owners who did nothing, gun homicides, and overall homicides actually INCREASED.

Are you seriously saying my source is not legit? It comes straight from the UK government. Here's the link (page 11 appendix 7):

As you can see, prior to the 1997 handgun ban, firearm homicides were declining and they declined to 49, a year before that ban.

After 1997, gun homicides started to increase to a greater level than pre-ban. This completely blows apart your entire argument. You commit post hoc ergo propter hoc by claiming that the UK firearm homicide rate is low because it bans most guns (save hunting shotguns and whatnot). In order for your claim to be true, you would need to examine firearm homicide rates in the UK PRE AND POST the handgun ban. If you do so, you would see an increase.
Posted by famousdebater 5 months ago
It's fine. And I'll definitely be up for a rematch after this tournament is over.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 5 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Normally you are not supposed to only vote conduct for a forfeiture. However, in the rules CON set up, if you forfeit, you violate the rules, which makes you an automatic loss. Because of this conduct goes to Pro. Pro wins arguments because Con failed to refute them, so arguments to Pro by default.