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

Gun Ban

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 62480
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Gun Control has been amongst one of the most debated topics about safety. But I am against the banning on weapons. One simple reason why: 2nd amendment. The second amendment helps people to be able to bear arms. Another reason why is safety. That gun can save your life when in danger and can stop people from assaulting you. Another reason is food. We used weapons before to kill animals for their food since there was no thing as a "supermarket". People today still hunt their food since it's free.


There should be A ban on guns or at the very least a good system of Gun Control.

Argument on the Second Amendment: Although it is true that the second amendment states that it is our right to bear arms it is also true that times have changed. Things were very different when the amendments were written. Back then, we really did have to hunt for our own food or at least trade goods or clothing with others for food. It made perfect sense to have the right to bear arms back then because it was very much needed. Back then there were no law enforcement or response teams that were able to keep security in a town or settlement so having a gun made people feel safe and secure. As mentioned before, times have changed. There is a very small percentage of people that use their guns today to hunt for their own food and/or survival. There isn't a huge percentage of American people that depend on a gun to survive anymore, that factor has changed since the time the amendments have been written. The necessity of owning a gun has changed dramatically.

Argument on "Safety" : When you say safety what do you mean? safety from your neighbors? safety from the city next to you? Or safety from other people in general? From what do you feel safe from when you own a gun.
Also you state that " That gun can save your life when in danger and can stop people from assaulting you", although that is true there is also another side to that. The same way that it can save your life, they can be used to take lives away and instead of stopping an assault it can begin one. A individual with a gun can both take and save a life a way. They can also start or even end an assault. Even if both the assaulter and defender had a gun, what good would come out of it.
For example, an individual assaults another citizen with a gun but at the same time the defender has a gun. Both individuals take out their guns and begin a shoot out. From there it is hard to say what would exactly happen but It most certainly isn't a simple outcome. There can be collateral damage with the citizens nearby, property damage, and/or both individuals end up dead because no one knows who's shooting who for what reason so both get shot down. So while I do agree with that a gun can stop an assault and save someone's life, I also believe that guns have the opposite effect.

Argument on "Food"(hunting our own food using guns): As mentioned before, times have dramatically changed. There isn't a huge portion of our population that depends on hunting for their survival. Therefore the need for guns is not needed. Also, saying that "People today still hunt their food since it's free" is a vague generalization. A good majority of hunting is monitored and controlled so I don't believe hunting is "free".
Debate Round No. 1


It's the decision of the armed individual wether to use it or not. Sure, it does kill people, but with a reason. Would you rather run away or stay and fight? And again, it's the decision of the person to use it or not.

You don't need to kill the person that's assaulting you with a single shot to a vital organ, but to just injure him/her for a getaway.

People use guns for recreational stuff like target shooting or disk shooting. And yes, methods of getting food has changed a lot since the introduction of supermarkets.

Also, they can generate money for hunters selling the hunted animal for a living if you don't live in cities.

On safety, again, Police Officers can protect citizens from an attack like terrorists or criminal activity with lethal force if absolutely necessary.


What do you mean, "Sure, it does kill people, but with a reason"? And staying or running from a fight is a bit irrelevant to the case.

It is also true that you don't have to shoot someone's vitals to end an assault but again, its not that simple. Not everyone knows where the vital spots are on the human body and even a less amount of people would be able to stay calm in a stressful situation to make the decision to aim for a leg or arm instead of the head or chest. You can say that everyone knows where a vital spot is such as the brain and hear but there are many more parts of the body where if you were to be shot at, you would bleed out if not given immediate medical attention. Again, saying " Just aim for a non vital spot to give you time to run away" is a simple concept but a much different circumstance in practice.

Yes, people still use guns for recreational activities such as disk shooting but now you are talking about using a gun for sport and not Personal use.

Once again on your safety statement, its not that easy. Criminals and terrorists don't have a huge sign hanging over their head saying "Im a Bad Guy". If a cop shows up with to a scene with two men or women shooting each other, the officer won't know who started the shooting, there would be mass confusion and if the worse came to worse, both people with guns would end up dead. That's why gun control seems like a logical choice. Many situations can become uncontrollable and unstable leading to civilian and/or property damage. So many things can go wrong.
Debate Round No. 2


Of course, there isn't going to be a sign on someone that's a terrorist. But most of the time, police try to stop both attackers and find out who's the one responsible for the shootout.

Second, it's obvious that if you get hit on the head, you die. It's common sense that you know what can kill you if hit in a spot because it's not a kid that's using the weapon to defend himself.

And one final thing, there's basically no way a gun can ever be banned since the 2nd amendment is still being used and will be today. After all, people do build homemade weapons like potato guns.


Firstly what do you mean by "common sense". And there is no difference between a kid using a gun to defend themselves and an individual who is in a stressful situation and has no experience in handling a weapon.

There isn't a 100% for sure way to say that the 2nd amendment will always stay valid. So many things can happen in the near future that can change everything.

Overall, there should be a ban on guns or some sort of gun restrictions. Events can become extremely dangerous and uncontrollable when civilians have guns and they become even more dangerous when they don't even know how to use them.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
GUN CONTROL........That means you hit your target.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 3 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: Con's arguments were largely unconvincing, and Pro did a remarkable job of pointing out the flaws in them. I was slightly put off by the fact that Con's points were short compared to Pro's, and yet he used words like "of course" and "obviously", which to me implied disrespect to his adversary. Points to Pro for this one. Neither side used sources.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro just argued their point a little better. Con, good effort, but a bit more explanation should have been used to better solidify what you were going for.