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

Gun ban; US

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: 5/5/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 552 times Debate No: 74810
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




I would like to debate a - say - not as well established member of DDO on this. You may only use 2,000 characters.

I am suggesting that guns should be (very, very, slowly) be banned in the US to remove all gun related crime and prevent American police officers from having to carry guns, that has led to worryingly high death rates. [1] There will be no acceptance so con goes straight in with his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has left his argument in the comments. Please do not punish him. I forgot to leave source 1 in the round so I will leave it at the bottom of this round.

The US simply has to go through this (admittedly long) process.

1. Rise in gun prices;
2. gun tax;
3. A very cheap and easy required gun test;
4. Limits on the amounts and sizes of guns one can own
5. Making license tests harder as time goes by.
6. Reducing gun usage to the point American police don't require them.

1. (from round 1)


I thank Pro for their quick response

First of all, I would like to highlight a few issues with Pro's process

1. Rise in gun prices

I'm not sure how this would happen in the first place. I the only way i would see a rise, is if the demand would suddenly skyrocket. Then again, that would negate the idea of banning guns. Say hypothetically, gun prices do come up, more guns will be sold at the black market at a cheaper price, which means more criminals will get their hands on guns.

2. Gun tax

Guns tax is tied is either tied with the state's sales tax, or the cost is already added to the gun itself. I don't believe my Americans would be happy with that, but yes It is possible to introduce gun tax. Then again, people will just resort the black market.

3. Limits on the amounts and size of guns can own.

Many people in the country already are advocating for the banning of high-magazine weapons, but people will just resort the handguns. Me personally, I'm not a big fan of guys carrying AR-15's for "self defense", as I believe a handgun would be more effective, but In general, putting restrictions on the type of guns might help a little bit.

4. Making license tests harder as time goes by.

I would like Pro to elaborate on how we should make it harder. Also, this would backfire on the 3 step you provided.

6. Reducing gun usage to the point American police don't require them.

Cops are going to use guns no matter what (especially American cops). I don't think reducing gun usage will have any effect on them carrying guns.

I still stand with my original points I mentioned in Round 1, and I encourage Pro to refute them.

Debate Round No. 2


R1: It is easy to increase prices by making laws requiring it. The US could then enforce it with the death penalty.

R2: If the US are any good at law enforcement (that even with the death penalty, they're not) people with untaxed firearms should be spotted immediately.

R3: In debates you're meant to disagree with things, but thanks anyway.

1. Make prices higher;
2. More proof you can shoot guns accurately (they must be able to get their shot in a 25mm square 60% of the time and always shoot within a 50mm square. Then reduce it by 5mm a year until it is 5mm and 30mm)
3. More proof they can be responsible with a gun. (all the obvious safety regulations, make them do a 2H, not time limited, exam on gun safety to prove they're capable, 80% and counting pass mark)

They will if Americans don't carry guns.

Based on this Americans don't need guns, your aforementioned points are refuted by this, unless you can prove. Thanks for the debate.


Since this is the last round, I will not make any additional arguments.


R1: I should like Pro to know, that the death penalty is only there for serious offenders. It would be quite crazy to excute everybody with illegal guns. Like I mentioned before, there are too many guns illegally used in the U.S. It is quite impossible for the U.S to crack down on these people.

R2: I'm not sure how they will be spotted. You can't tell the difference between a legal gun owner, and a illegal gun owner. The only way you can do this is if you ask go up to the guy and ask him for his license. This simply is impossible.

R4: This method is great, in keeping legal owners from obtaining guns. The only problem is that people are continuing to buy guns from the black market. When you do this, people can no longer defend themselves.

R6: Criminals will get their hand on guns no matter what. It is a way too late for the U.S to bring in gun control. Say hypothetically, gun makers start to withdraw their stock, crime will skyrocket, because they know people wont be able to defend themselves. Also, there aren't enough cops to stop the violence.

I thank my opponent for this educational debate.

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Dilara 1 year ago
Posted by Dilara 1 year ago
Also wouldn't criminals get guns anyways? Drugs are illegal and criminals get those? So we'd have a situation where there would be armed criminals and unarmed good guys. That's a recipies for tragedy . Criminals could use their black market guns against law abiding unarmed civilians .
Posted by Dilara 1 year ago
According to the CDC guns are used 400,000 times a year to save lives in Americ (and 500,000 times a year to prevent other crimes). They are used 30,000 times a year to kill. So if we banned guns we could save 30,000 lives-assuming that a gun ban could prevent all gun deaths--and we would kill 400,000 people by not allowing them to defend them selves. Now, out of the 30,000 gun deaths that America see every year 20,000 are suicides. 7000 are gang related murderers. Gangsters will get guns regardless of the laws. So you couldn't save those 27,000 gang related and suicide gun deaths by banning guns. That leaves 3000. So we'd save 3000 lives and end 4000,000 lives
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
I thank my opponent for allowing me to post this in the comments.

Why I think guns should be banned

Its very impractical to start of with

Banning guns is very impractical in the U.S, because nearly everyone owns a gun. All a ban would do is provide a gateway for black market for guns. U.S simply can't afford to spend billions on enforcing that law. Already we are in debt, and spending more money on something that really can't be accomplished is not what Americans want.

It is in the constitution
The right to bear arms is in the 2nd Amendment, and is banning guns deemed unconstitutional by many. The reason our founding fathers gave us this right, is to give us a chance against a rogue government. It might seem crazy, but "today's empires are tomorrow's ashes."

Gun's aren't directly responsible for high murder rates

The I reason I believe murder rates are very high in some areas, is because of the wealth inequality. When people become poor, they do what they need to do to survive. If we are to tackle the high murder rate (which is already declining), we have to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. Our homicide rate in the 90's was 9 for 100,000 people, and now its around 4.5. What we need is to educate people to only use guns as a last resort. For a country who has the most guns in the world, our homicide rate isn't too bad. Room for improvement? Definitely.
Posted by alric8 1 year ago
Go ahead
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
Sorry my mistake I didn't read that part, is it okay if i just post my argument in the comments?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Since Con's comment about the debate was allowed and agreed on by both debaters, I will take notice of that. Con argued about the impracticality of a gun ban since many people own one and how it would be hard to enforce, that the second amendment is a legitimate base to oppose a gun ban, and that the American homicide rate has dropped with the increase of guns (no source was provided, but Pro conceded to it). The latter two points were dropped. Pro continued on how to ban guns rather than focusing on much of the *why* aspect, and what was presented was refuted by Con. Two examples of this was Con stating how the black market has guns (Pro dropped this) and how guns are necessary for self-defense, in response to Pro's gun tax arguments, which were the only arguments made by the proposition. Sources - Pro had only source.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I was initially going to give conduct to Pro due to Con putting their first round argument in the comments, but Pro said not to punish them for it, so I won't. Arguments go to Con, because Con gave very convincing arguments in the first round [in the comments,] that were never brought up again by either side, since they were not refuted by Pro I will give arguments to Con. The entire process that Pro gave for what America can do to ban guns was refuted effectively by Con by the end of the debate. Con's arguments stating the 2nd amendment was never refuted, and neither was their argument about how guns aren't directly linked to high crime rates. Therefore, since Pro's arguments were refuted, and con's weren't, I give the arguments points to Con. Sources go to Pro, since they were the only ones to use any.