The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Gun ban legislation and the no fly list

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
madforge has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 93207
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




The facts are as stated. Laws exist only to limit the law abiding citizen. That is not to say that laws are not necessary, but laws must be in accordance with the Constitution. Banning guns in an effort to reduce gun violence will not only fail, but accelerate gun related shootings to an all time high. The bottom line is that American citizens are guaranteed a right to be armed and have well regulated private militias and no matter how many people clamor to take that right away should not change the constitutional republic in which majority rule but minority right. Gun control is not about safety, it is a another measure by the international banks that run the world to dominate the last few dissenters.


First of all removing guns from the equation completely would reduce the number of gun related crimes per capita. Australia Norway, Canada, France, Britain,Belgiumetc... all have far lower gun related incidents and a far higher amount of gun regulation. So the claim that removing guns completely would increase crime is demonstrably false. I believe stern regulation is the answer to guns, banning them will do nothing whatsoever. I also think that it is fair to ban people on the terror watch list from having guns, and anyone who poses a threat to security on the no fly list. Other than that I believe in freedom, if you want a gun you should be able to have one, but we need reassurances that it is being properly taken care of.
2nd: the founders of this country considered the second amendment to allow the use of muskets and flintlock pistols as was the weapons of choice in the late 1700s. Today's weapons can slaughter massive amounts of people in a limited amount of time with the use of drum/extended mags. Today's weapons can shred cars to bits in seconds. That is not what the founders made the document for. Not in the slightest.
3rd: the constitution was intended to be a document that was evolving and could potentially change completely depending on what the majority wanted. And/or what the times called for. I am well aware that the constitutions status has changed radically in the last two centuries and is considered a static document. Though this was not how it was originally intended to be.
4th: the laws of our country are designed to protect its citizens and punish those who would disobey a law that is supported by the majority of the people in the jurasdiction of that law whether that be local, state, or federal . Yes the system is not perfect and yes, sometimes it does not work as intended, but it is the best system we have got.

Finally I wanted to point out that in the 1780s and 90s our most powerful weapons ever were cannons and small hand grenades. Today someone can kill 100 million people by pushing 1 button and unleashing a 20 megaton nuke on a city, I wanted you to see how far our ability to destroy has come. We have the power to sterilize the earth of life several times over within only a couple weeks. We are not the people of 1790 we are the children of 2016. And we must learn to control our own power.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to make my rebuttal of each of your points in separate paragraphs for simplicity. I would also note that I understand logical fallacies and I do not attack my opponent personally but I attack his points harshly if need be. I just want to be clear that the two do not become mixed. That is the very nature of a debate.

First point rebuttal: In reality removing guns from the equation is impossible, and will only result in only government and criminals having guns. If we however, entertain your hypothetical, then yes gun crime would reduce because guns would not exist but other types of crime would skyrocket. If someone cant shoot a person to death then they will simply stab them to death. You have committed a logical fallacy in your first point. You mention countries that have more gun regulation and explain that they have less gun crime. Then you make a conclusion that crime in general does not increase if guns are removed. At first your argument was about gun crime, then you either assume all crime is gun crime or attempted to make a claim about all crime but only talking about gun crime. Your conclusion is not only wrong because it is logically incoherent, but statistically it is mistaken. These gun regulated countries you mention have seen all types of violent crime explode since major gun bans and regulations. Below I will explain these facts about gun regulated countries and areas.

Canada: In 1920 before any gun regulations (yes full auto and semi auto weapons existed and people had some of these) the homicide rate in Canada was 7% of the U.S. rate. After strict gun regulations in the 1980's Canada's homicide rate was 35% of the U.S rate. In 2003 Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian provinces than in the northern U.S. states across the entire border. I would like to start a trend by saying less guns more crime. This trend will continue.

Britain: From Britain's own government numbers ever since the major gun restriction of the 1990's violent crime has exponentially increased. After the gun bans, GUN crime has doubled since handguns were banned in the 90's in Britain. Britain has the highest crime rate in Europe but also has the strictest gun laws. In the early 2000's after the gun laws, U.K. street robberies increased 28%. In 2004 they had another 10% increase. Since 2000 armed robbery, assault, attempted murder, rape, and kidnapping ALL saw an increase of over 100% since the gun bans. Handguns were used in 3,685 cases in 2000 after the gun restriction compared to 2,648 before the gun restrictions. Again less guns means more crime.

Australia: In the first two years on strict gun regulations criminal activity increased 20%. After the new gun laws, firearm murders were up 19% and armed robberies were up 69% as well as a 20% increase in home break ins. 15 years before the gun bans, gun related homicides dropped over 60%. Less guns means more crime.

Mexico: Not much needs to be said here. Guns are banned from citizens while the drug cartel terrorizes people and the Mexican police strike fear in the people. Mexico for the most part is not a place for tourists to visit. Less guns means more crime.

Southside Chicago: In this area guns are heavily restricted and it has one of the worst crime per capita rates in the world. If you want to live in place where guns are restricted by the government then go live in Chicago where 116 in 100,000 are directly affected by crime. Again less guns means more crime.

Switzerland: Here almost every citizen has a gun and has heavy firepower available. They have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. They have lowest gun crime rates but yet they have the most guns. Not a single school has been massacred in Switzerland to date. Less guns means more crime

United States: The united states crime and drugs org. can find no correlation with gun ownership and and gun related homicides in terms of having more guns meaning more crime. For homicides out of 100,000 people America ranks 104th on the list even though we are number one on the number of guns in the hands of citizens. The top 10 on the list have the strictest gun laws.

Part two on point one: I need to inform you that these no fly lists and terror lists are done without a court order or any findings by a jury. People are placed on these lists with NO due process. That is incredibly unconstitutional. Small children are put on these lists all the time without doing a single thing. People who are convicted felons by a court should be restricted and they all ready are. America has gun restrictions enough and in some areas too much.

Point two rebuttal: To think that some of the most brilliant men to ever walk the earth were stupid enough to believe that guns would not advance to what they are today is absolutely idiotic. Even in the lifetimes of the founders, guns dramatically improved. George Washington, the general of the army understood that many of his enemies had breech loading rifles that were superior to his muskets. The first rapid fire rifles came around in the 1770's and was made known to the founding fathers. The Girondoni air rife could get five shots off before someone could reload a musket to get one off. The early days of the government made no attempt to ban these or restrict them. They wanted the people to be well equipped against enemies including a tyrannical government. That is why the second amendment includes the right to have a private militia. If enemies of America are equipped heavily then the people must not be outgunned. The founders did not make the document for citizens to have muskets while the government had ar15's. Around the civil war private companies developed guns that could shred a car in seconds called a gatling gun. Some private citizens bought these and the government was not worried about it. The U.S. army up until almost 1900 issued only muskets while private citizens had repeating rifles and heavy weaponry. Note that in this time without gun regulations people did not go on rampages and kill a bunch of people in gun free zones we have today that are asking to be slaughtered. As far as big machine guns and bombs and tanks go, it costs more money than most citizens have to even get those. The people legally buying heavy weaponry DON'T commit the crimes with these guns you are afraid of. Only one crime I can think of in America where heavy weaponry was used was to steal an armored truck one time, oh and just the time where the government used tanks to slaughter 70 people in Texas in Waco without any warrant or probable cause. The Government has committed more crimes than the people have with heavy guns. In the time of the founders, they relied on PRIVATE people to have all the cannons and best guns on their ships to run the navy. The founders made no attempt in war or peace time to limit the peoples firepower.

Third point rebuttal: You questioned the intelligence or foresight of the founders in point two but not here in point three. Yes! the founders designed the constitution to be changed because they knew that everything advances like guns and technology, but they also made it clear what was not to be changed. Are we going to restrict the first amendment now that we have smartphones? The rights granted to us in that document are under no circumstances to be restricted. Certainly the way to obtain weapons is monitored but we must have them.

Last point: You have the temerity to assume I am not aware of nuclear weapons and what they can do. Its not feasible to buy them for yourself because they cost too much and the MAD theory would take place if a nuke was fired and we would all die and that would be the end of it anyway. The real question is that a nuke is not practical in any way and anyone wanting them for private use would have only their sanity to be questioned.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Janerover 2 years ago
I felt the need to post this since someone referenced Australia in their argument. Here is my opinion, which is backed by data published in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) on the declining rates of death in Australia due to gun law reforms. In case you aren't aware, JAMA is one of the most respected medical journals IN the WORLD. The lead author is Professor Simon Chapman, who has been cited over 10, 000 times and has a towering reputation in the medical community. (see:

"From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred. There was also significant change in the preexisting downward trends for rates of total firearm deaths prior to vs after gun law reform. From 1979-1996, the mean rate of total firearm deaths was 3.6 (95% CI, 3.3-3.9) per 100R39;000 population (average decline of 3% per year; annual trend, 0.970; 95% CI, 0.963-0.976), whereas from 1997-2013 (after gun law reforms), the mean rate of total firearm deaths was 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0-1.4) per 100R39;000 population (average decline of 4.9% per year; annual trend, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.940-0.962), with a ratio of trends in annual death rates of 0.981 (95% CI, 0.968-0.993). From 1979-1996, the mean annual rate of total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths was 10.6 (95% CI, 10.0-11.2) per 100R39;000 population (average increase of 2.1% per year; annual trend, 1.021; 95% CI, 1.016-1.026), whereas from 1997-2013, the mean annual rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 11.3-12.3) per 100R39;000 (average decline of 1.4% per year; annual trend, 0.986; 95% CI, 0.980-0.993), with a ratio of trends of 0.966 (95% CI, 0.958-0.973). There was no evidence of substitution of other lethal methods for suicides or homicides."
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
I would love this debate, but it would have to be mid July for me to debate.
Posted by Silas_Cole 2 years ago
Can't argue with that, 100% agree. I'm probably more pro gun than most pro gun. I disagree with passing laws that don't effect the criminal. If the criminal isn't going to follow the law then why even pass it to begin with. Oh wait, you want to pass it because your only looking to control the law abiding citizen anyways, which happens to be the majority.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.