The Instigator
Alexianilabrown
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Guns Should be Banned for Civilians in the USA

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 5 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,785 times Debate No: 29383
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

Alexianilabrown

Pro

Guns cause more problems than they solve. Statistics show that in countries where guns have been banned completely there is a severe drop in the amount of crime in the area. The argument that less guns means more knives is utterly ridiculous because there is a very big difference between killing someone with a knife and killing someone with a gun. It is a whole lot easier for a person to shoot someone than it is to stab them, not just physically but emotionally. Guns distance the attacker from the victim which means that it is easier for the shooter to feel detached from the situation. It is also a lot harder to escape from a person with gun than it is with a person with a knife. This combination turns people who would normally have never killed anyone into stone cold murders because it is not very difficult to do. There is far too much access to guns in the USA which is why people don't feel safe unless they have their own gun. It is sort of a catch 22. Too many guns means that people feel the need to get their own gun in order to feel safe, thereby increasing the numbers of guns in the country.
imabench

Con

I am a liberal who supports gun control, but I do not think that it would be best to ban guns from civilians. Banning guns from civilians goes too far in my opinion, and I shall introduce arguments about why this would be a bad idea.

First I will respond to Pro's claims
"Statistics show that in countries where guns have been banned completely there is a severe drop in the amount of crime in the area"

List of countries that have completely banned civilians from owning guns
1) China (And we know how tyrannical they are)
2) East Timor (Currently crawling with militias, so their ban is very very ineffective)
3) Romania
4) Israel (And we all know how unstable that region is :P)
5) Japan (Ok they're pretty stable)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So banning guns doesnt necessarily lead to peace and stability

"It is a whole lot easier for a person to shoot someone than it is to stab them, not just physically but emotionally"

It makes it harder but it certainly doesnt make it impossible though.... in 2010 there were over 8,500 deaths caused by guns but there were also 1,700 deaths caused by knives.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...

"There is far too much access to guns in the USA which is why people don't feel safe unless they have their own gun"

But US citizens have the right to self defense, and if they feel that a handgun is the best way to defend themselves then a gun ban will only be doing more harm then good. Self defense doesnt just include defense against other people with guns, it includes defense against burglars, muggers, animals, gangs, thiefs, sexual assault, rape, etc. which means banning all guns would make people more vulnerable to attack before any good came out of it.

================================================================

Arguments against banning all guns for civilians in the US:

1) People own guns for reasons other then self protection, including simply firing at targets or for hunting.
http://www.justfacts.com...

2) Using guns as protection is effective.

"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
http://www.justfacts.com...

So using guns for self defense is extremely effective.

3) Banning handguns has proven to nto be effective here in the US.

Washington DC and Chicago have tried handgun bans only to see the number of homicides increase in specific periods after the ban was implemented
http://www.justfacts.com...

^ The same source shows that right to carry firearm laws have led to less murders then when you couldnt carry in the states of Florida, Michigan, and Texas, states that have had notoriously high crime rates in the past.

4) Its a constitutional Right to bear arms

Second Amendment

5) If guns were to be banned from civilians, how the hell would the government collect all the guns?

There are about a hundred million of firearms in the US that are divided among hundreds of thousands of US households, and if guns were to be banned from civilians the government would have to come up with some way to check all the houses for all the guns and somehow legally confiscate them (aka get around the second amendment). if the government were to go door to door to search for firearms, it would cost taxpayers a sh*tload of money and im sure that such an effort would be horrendously ineffective anyways. Guns shouldnt be banned from civilians because the task of going and getting these guns would be monumental and doomed to fail.

6) Conceal-Carry laws would be more effective in fighting crime then banning all guns.

I mentioned this before under argument 3 where it has been shown that conceal-carry laws decrease crime better then banning handgun ownership.

==========================================================================

Now look I am all for increased background checks and not letting felons or the mentally ill own a firearm, along with having people register to own a firearm..... But even I think that banning all civilians from owning a gun is just not an effective way to fight crime, and its also a massive breach in constitutional rights....
Debate Round No. 1
Alexianilabrown

Pro

To start I will defend my previous statements. The con has listed a few countries which have implemented a complete ban on gun ownership by civilians, however the con only gives very generalised statements about each country and does not show any statistics to support their claim. In England and Wales there has been an almost complete ban on owning firearms, statistics show that during 2008 - 2009 there were 39 fatal injuries involving firearms. This is compared to statistics form America in 2008 showing 12,000 gun related homicides.

http://www.economist.com...

Clearly banning guns does reduce the amount of gun related homicides that occur in the country.

The entire point of gun legislation is to make is harder for criminals to harm civilians. According to the statistics quoted by the con in 2010 over 8,500 deaths were caused by guns. This means that if guns were banned in American 8,500 lives would have been saved in 2010. Surely this is the perfect example of gun bans making it harder for criminals to harm civilians.

Yes I agree the citizens of the USA do have a right to defend themselves, but at what point do we say that self defence has become pre-emptive attack. Is it acceptable to shoot a person who is intruding in your house. If so than I am I allowed to shoot someone who comes over for tea but than refuses to leave when I ask them. There is a reason why people are not given the death sentence for breaking and entering, and that is because they do not deserve it. So why is it acceptable for someone to shoot an intruder.

Looking closely at the gun related homicides that occur in the USA there is one main point that stands out. Statistically if you are a women and you are shot by a man, it is 3 times more likely that the man who shot you was your husband or intimate acquaintances of yours than someone you didn't know.

http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org...

This suggests that you should be more worried about your spouse rather than someone random on the street. This also shows the startling amount of times that guns are being used by civilians during domestic house fights. It isn't hard to imagine husband and wife having some sort of argument things get a bit heated, the husband (or wife) reaches into the draw and pulls out a gun and shoots their partner dead. A person in a temporary moment of insanity and anger shooting their partner because it was just too easy. In a country where guns are banned that gun would never have even been brought into the equation.

The argument that "People own guns for reasons other then self protection, including simply firing at targets or for hunting" is true. However, there has been a massive increase in bow hunters in the past few years because of the extra challenge it provides. Also since most people buy their meat from the shops, hunting isn't really a major necessity these days.

1982 was quite a long time ago. Guns have evolved a lot over the past 30 years and so has the way that criminals operate. These days almost all criminals who own guns are fully licensed, this means that there is no difference between a criminal owning a gun and a civilian owning a gun. This makes it very difficult for any sort of action to be taken against the criminals who own guns, because there actually has to be some sort of crime linked to their gun.

It is sort of like you have two sides the bad guys with the guns and the good guys with the guns, they are both shooting at each other and it becomes hard to see the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. Chances are all the guns were bought legally, the only difference is the intent. The good guys only want guns for protection, the bad guys want guns so they can shoot the good guys. Quite often, as I stated before, guns that were for 'self protection' end up being used in domestic murders, which means that sometimes the good guys become bad guys. Now all of a sudden there are more bad guys than good guys, but everyone is still claiming that they only want guns for protection. See how confusing everything gets.

The reason why 'Banning handguns has proven to not be effective here in the US' is because of a negative reaction towards the new ban. Homicide rates increased because people who owned handguns that never left the house, suddenly came out in silent protest against the new ban by actually carrying their gun around in the streets. This lead to more confrontations therefore more gun related deaths. All the ban needs is a bit more time for it to sink into the residents. Police officers need to step up their game because now they can remove the handguns and charge their owners even before any shots are fired.

Now the con has come out with the age old statement that is our constitutional right to bear arms. It must be noted with this argument that the second amendment was passed back in 1791. Back then those guns could only fire one shot before they had to be reloaded, and fully automatic weapons were not even a concept yet. I am sure that the writers of the second amendment never imagined in the future what our arms would actually look like. Yes I do agree that the second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms, but I think it is only fair for them to own the guns that the writers of the second amendment assumed that everyone would have, that is of course muskets and other guns from 1791.

I think it is perfectly clear that the benefits of having a ban on guns far out way the negatives.
imabench

Con

"The con has listed a few countries which have implemented a complete ban on gun ownership by civilians, however the con only gives very generalised statements about each country and does not show any statistics to support their claim"

I listed countries that have completely banned firearms and then made general remarks about the instability/tyranny of living in each of them to show that your argument that no guns = more stability is very false.

"In England and Wales there has been an ALMOST complete ban on owning firearms"

So now Pro's own arguments are showing that you dont even need to ban all guns to have stability, you only need to have a good amount of gun control and not an outright ban.

"Clearly banning guns does reduce the amount of gun related homicides that occur in the country."

But even you said that they didnt ban guns and only that they 'almost' did... Plus ive already provided examples of countries that have banned guns that still are ravaged with chaos, instability, or tyranny which you simply chose to ignore.....

"According to the statistics quoted by the con in 2010 over 8,500 deaths were caused by guns. This means that if guns were banned in American 8,500 lives would have been saved in 2010. Surely this is the perfect example of gun bans making it harder for criminals to harm civilians."

8,500 saved in a population of over 300,000,000 = less than 0.002%.... Not really much of an impact. Plus some of the murderers who killed those 8500 people could easily have used another kind of weapon to kill the person they killed such as an axe, a hammer, poison, a car, a rock, a sledgehammer, a knife, etc..... People will find ways to kill other people and banning guns will only save a fraction of victims. And a fraction of 0.002% is enough to show how little of an impact such a drastic measure would have on the US.

"Is it acceptable to shoot a person who is intruding in your house?"

Yeah, because theyre breaking and entering....

"If so than I am I allowed to shoot someone who comes over for tea but than refuses to leave when I ask them"

Now youre just resorting to semantics to dance around the argument. People have the right to defend themselves and ridiculing the act of self defense doesnt make that statement any less true.

"So why is it acceptable for someone to shoot an intruder?"

Ask anyone who has ever been kidnapped, held hostage, robbed, or killed by a stranger when they wee in their home and im sure they'll have a few reasons on why its acceptable to shoot someone who may be breaking into your house to kill, rape, or steal from you.

"Statistically if you are a women and you are shot by a man, it is 3 times more likely that the man who shot you was your husband or intimate acquaintances of yours than someone you didn't know."

And if you banned guns then there is no reason to claim that at least some of those same men would not resort to another weapon to kill.....

"In a country where guns are banned that gun would never have even been brought into the equation."

Seriously, do you know what a knife is? Or any blunt object for that matter? Men when infuriated can kill women with just about anything you can imagine so banning guns wont end spousal murder, it would only put a dent in it.

"However, there has been a massive increase in bow hunters in the past few years because of the extra challenge it provides. Also since most people buy their meat from the shops, hunting isn't really a major necessity these days."

Jesus, more semantical arguments? People dont hunt animals for food these days, they hunt for sport, and your other argument that "they can use bows and arrows instead" isnt an argument, its just an excuse.

"Now all of a sudden there are more bad guys than good guys, but everyone is still claiming that they only want guns for protection"

So since good guys with guns might become bad guys with guns, this means all guns should be banned? By that logic we should also ban knives, bows and arrows, and fists themselves since a good guy with fists can turn into a bad guy with fists.....

"Homicide rates increased because people who owned handguns that never left the house, suddenly came out in silent protest against the new ban by actually carrying their gun around in the streets. This lead to more confrontations therefore more gun related deaths. All the ban needs is a bit more time for it to sink into the residents."

There are absolutely no sources that exist anywhere in the world indicating that this statement is even close to being true....

"Police officers need to step up their game because now they can remove the handguns and charge their owners even before any shots are fired."

Seriously, youre arguments dont even make sense anymore. Police officers cant arrest gun owners for a crime they didnt do, and claiming that they should kills reason and intellect itself....

"Yes I do agree that the second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms, but I think it is only fair for them to own the guns that the writers of the second amendment assumed that everyone would have, that is of course muskets and other guns from 1791."

The founding Fathers have been dead for close to 200 years, NOBODY knows what they were assuming when they wrote the Second Amendment, and using your assumption of someone elses assumption as your main reason for being against guns is no evidence at all. I can sit here all day and assume that the founding fathers believed that all citizens should have a right to any form of self defense and use that as my argument for the second amendment, and that argument would have just as much weight as yours......

==========================================================================

Summary:

1) Banning guns does not make a country stable in all cases such as East Timor.

2) Pro's own arguments show that you dont even have to ban all guns to achieve stability (England) which defeats her own resolution that we should ban all guns to be stable since you dont even have to ban all guns in order to lower gun deaths, you just have to control them right.

3) Only .002% of the population dies from gun-related incidents, which means if a gun ban was implemented then only a fraction of .002% of people would even be saved.

4) Its possible to kill somebody without using a gun, and criminals have killed others for thousands of years before guns were ever invented, so theres no logical way to conclude that banning guns will foil these same criminals

5) People have the right to defend themselves, and just because pro doesnt believe people should have that right it doesnt mean that this reason for being against a gun ban can be dismissed....

6) Pro completely dropped the argument that it would be impossible for the government to collect all the guns once a ban was implemented

7) Pro completely dropped the argument that conceal carry laws have proven to be more effective in stopping crime then a gun ban.

8) Pro simply danced around the argument that existing gun bans have been proven to not be effective and resorted to semantics to explain why they are but that current ones havent worked.

9) Pro completely dropped the argument that guns are very effective in being used for self defense.

Debate Round No. 2
Alexianilabrown

Pro

Never during my arguments have I claimed the banning guns will increase stability in the USA. My argument is that a complete ban on guns should be implemented in the USA because guns have been proven to cause an increase in crime, and that they cause more harm than good.

The countries that were listed by the con in his initial argument were China, East Timor, Romania, Israel and Japan. The ban on civilian guns in China was implement in 1996, since then the number of gun related homicides have continued to fall, from 26,276 in 2002 to 14,811 in 2008.

http://www.gunpolicy.org...

Compare these statistics to data showing that gun related homicides in the USA have been on the rise. From 9,257 in 1998 to 11,101 in 2011. The reason why there are more gun related homicide in China than the USA is because the population of China is almost 4 times the population of the USA.

http://www.gunpolicy.org...

Moving on the East Timor. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get accurate data from this particular area because of the countries current situation. This means that it cannot be use to prove either argument. However there are accurate statistics for Romania, Israel, and Japan.

In Romania there are only 5 gun related homicides every year.

In Israel there are only 6 gun related homicides every year.

In Japan there are only 11 gun related homicides every year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

The cons arguments are based on incorrect stereotypes about particular countries, and show a general ignorance about the situation of countries outside of the USA.

It is true that there has only been an almost complete ban on owning firearms in the UK. You are only allowed to own guns in the UK if you can demonstrate a "genuine need" to own a firearm. Self defence is not considered a genuine need.

http://djilp.org...

The con is correct in stating that England and Wales are not the best countries to use for my argument, however the countries that the con listed are perfect examples of bans on guns reducing gun related homicides. The example of England and Wales does still support my argument because it could be argued that a complete ban would reduced the gun related deaths even more.

The con argues that the lives of 8,500 people are not worth very much in the whole scheme of things and therefore there is no reason why anything should be done to save them. Yes, you can be killed with other weapons, but guns make it so much easier because one shot can easily kill and it is impossible to outrun a bullet. It would be impossible to stop all homicides around the world, but if even a fraction of them can be saved then surely it is worth it.

There is a reason why there is a court system in the US. It was designed so that people are given the punishments that they deserve. In the con's eyes anyone who breaks into a house deserves the death penalty. There are other ways for people to defend themselves from attackers. Knives, pepper spray, locks, alarms ext.

As I have been saying throughout my entire argument, guns make it easier for people kill because it is so fast and so impersonal that they don't have time to think about their actions. Many men who have killed their wives with a gun, would never have committed the act if it wasn't so easy to do (if the gun was not within reach).

Actually my comment "Homicide rates increased because people who owned handguns that never left the house, suddenly came out in silent protest against the new ban by actually carrying their gun around in the streets." does have evidence. Gun bans were brought into Australia in 1996, during that year gun related homicides increased from 67 in 1995 to 104 in 1996. This was because of the very situation I described, then as the ban sunk in for the residents homicides dropped to 79 in 1997, and then continued to drop as the years progressed.

http://www.aic.gov.au...

If a gun ban is introduced, police officers can charge gun owners for possession of illegal firearms before any shots are fired. Otherwise it wouldn't be a ban on guns.

The con's statement about not knowing what the founding fathers assumed is idiotic. If there is no way of knowing what the founding fathers really meant by saying firearms, then it cannot be used to support the cons debate either because for all we know the founding fathers were saying that people have the right to set their arms alight.

It would actually be very easy to collect the guns once a ban is implemented. In Australia in 1996 the government offered to buy any guns (for a reasonable price) that anyone wanted to sell. This meant that people could get rid of the guns that were now illegal to own, but also get some sort of reward, which gave people an incentive.

Reasons why guns should be banned

1) It has been proven that a complete ban on guns does reduce the number of homicides

2) Guns are very effective killing machines that are statistically more likely to be used in criminal behaviour

3) It is very easy to collect guns with the government offering to buy the guns

4) Too many gun related killings are from domestic assault

5) There are many other ways for people to defend themselves without resorting to the use of guns

6) In 2011 19,766 people killed themselves using guns. People who commit suicide often choose to use guns because it is quick and relatively painless. Many people who contemplate suicide decide not to because they do not have access to a gun.

7) Hunting is a pointless exercise which is rapidly losing interest because guns make it too easy for a kill to be made

8) Continued development in gun technology is making it easier for people to commit mass murders

9) The constitution is very outdated and its rules on guns have no place in modern society

10) Gun bans allow police to charge people for possession of an illegal fireman before anyone is actually killed

11) Guns encourage people to act as vigilantes and to bypass the court system

12) When learning to shoot people are often told to shoot at human shaped targets, which is very sadistic as it also teaches which parts of the human body will cause the most damage when hit with a bullet. More or less they are training killers

13) Bullets are impossible outrun and some guns have such a large range that the victim may not even realise they are being targeted
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guns clearly, based on the evidence that is displayed through my argument, increase the number of homicides and general crime that occur in the country every year. While they are effective means of self defence there are many other ways that people can protect themselves. Guns have no place in modern civilised society and cause so much more bad that they do good.
imabench

Con

"My argument is that a complete ban on guns should be implemented in the USA because guns have been proven to cause an increase in crime, and that they cause more harm than good."

And im arguing that there are good reasons to keep guns, like self defense or constitutional right, but you just keep saying that those reasons are overrated.

"http://www.guardian.co.uk...;
^ Pro gave this source which actually shows that reduced guns does not decrease crime.

The US has 270 million guns and 2.97 homicides per 100,000 people. That ranks 27th in the world, and all 26 countries in front of them have less guns then the US does COMBINED.

Honduras: 500,000 guns............ 84.4 homicides by firearms per 100,000 people
El Salvador: 400,000 guns.......... 39.9 homicides by firearms per 100,000 people
Jamaica: 215,000 guns.............. 39.4 homicides by firearms per 100,000 people
Venezuela: 2.85 million guns..... 39.0 homicides by firearms per 100,000 people
Guatemala: 1.65 million guns.... 34.8 homicides by firearms per 100,000 people
Colombia: 2.7 million guns........ 27.1 homicides by firearms per 100,000 people

US: 270 MILLION guns.............. Less than 3 homicides by firearms per 100,000 people

Clearly you cant conclude that more guns = more crimes and more deaths, because if it were true then the US would be annihilating itself from how many guns there are. In reality the countries with the highest homicide rates have a far fewer amount of guns then the US.

" It would be impossible to stop all homicides around the world, but if even a fraction of them can be saved then surely it is worth it."

It most certainly would NOT be worth it. People get killed way more from car accidents then from guns but it would be suicidal to an economy to ban all cars. If we banned everything that ever got someone killed we would have to ban cars, planes, buses, rocks, baseball bats, and cut off everyones hands while we are at it.....

" In the con's eyes anyone who breaks into a house deserves the death penalty"

Thats clearly not what I said and putting words in my mouth doesnt make your arguments any less crappy then they already are.

"There are other ways for people to defend themselves from attackers. Knives, pepper spray, locks, alarms ext."

And none of those will ever be as effective as a gun.

"Gun bans were brought into Australia in 1996, during that year gun related homicides increased from 67 in 1995 to 104 in 1996."

Youre really not helping your argument.....

"this was because of the very situation I described, then as the ban sunk in for the residents homicides dropped to 79 in 1997, and then continued to drop as the years progressed."

No where in this report from 2003 does it say that the reason why homicides increased the very year that gun bans were instituted was because of whatever excuse you offered.

"If a gun ban is introduced, police officers can charge gun owners for possession of illegal firearms before any shots are fired. Otherwise it wouldn't be a ban on guns."

So you would essentially be charging people for a crime they didnt commit because under your assumption everybody who owns a gun intends to use it for nefarious purposes.......

" If there is no way of knowing what the founding fathers really meant by saying firearms.....because for all we know the founding fathers were saying that people have the right to set their arms alight."

You were claiming that you somehow know how the founding fathers would stand regarding a gun ban in today's society, which is knowledge that nobody has or ever will have..... Its clearly written in the Constitution that citizens have the right to bear arms, and the federal courts have ruled time and time again that citizens have the right to self defense.

The point still stands that its a constitutional right that people have the right to have guns, and all the pro has done to argue against this is that 'The constitution is out of date'.....

"It would actually be very easy to collect the guns once a ban is implemented. In Australia in 1996 the government offered to buy any guns (for a reasonable price) that anyone wanted to sell"

Weve had those for YEARS in the US. Theres one in Los Angeles where the government buys people guns and no questions will be asked.....
http://www.nydailynews.com...

This one in LA is the most successful one in the country and this year it got less than 2000 guns turned in this year. There are 270 MILLION guns in the US and the most successful gun buyback program in the nation only got 1600 guns over the course of a YEAR. Gun buback programs are nice to have but they are certainly no solution to instituting a gun ban in the US....

"1) It has been proven that a complete ban on guns does reduce the number of homicides"

Countries that have far less guns then the US have far more homicides per 100,000 people then the US, as the pro's own source supports.

"2) Guns are very effective killing machines that are statistically more likely to be used in criminal behaviour"

Opinion.

"3) It is very easy to collect guns with the government offering to buy the guns"

Flat out false.

"4) Too many gun related killings are from domestic assault"

Then maybe we should be promoting marriage counseling instead of taking away all the guns...

"5) There are many other ways for people to defend themselves without resorting to the use of guns"

None of which are as effective as guns which are still Constitutionally protected.

"6) In 2011 19,766 people killed themselves using guns. People who commit suicide often choose to use guns because it is quick and relatively painless. Many people who contemplate suicide decide not to because they do not have access to a gun."

Again, a gun ban would only put a dent in suicide numbers, it wouldnt completely eliminate them. Also I find it kind of pointless to ban guns in the US just so that a couple thousand depressed people have to suffer even longer then they want to.

"7) Hunting is a pointless exercise which is rapidly losing interest because guns make it too easy for a kill to be made"

Super duper opinion...

"8) Continued development in gun technology is making it easier for people to commit mass murders"

Then limit those kinds of guns rather then ban and take away all of them.

"9) The constitution is very outdated and its rules on guns have no place in modern society"

MEGA opinion.

"10) Gun bans allow police to charge people for possession of an illegal fireman before anyone is actually killed"

Unsubstantiated claim based on a false stereotype of what people who have guns use them for

"11) Guns encourage people to act as vigilantes and to bypass the court system"

Another unsubstantiated opinion.

"12) When learning to shoot people are often told to shoot at human shaped targets, which is very sadistic as it also teaches which parts of the human body will cause the most damage when hit with a bullet."

Im getting a whole lot of opinions over here since it is more then possible that people shoot at human targets because people train to use guns for self defense against criminals.

==========================================================================

Pro forfeits the effectiveness of conceal-carry laws that are more proven to lower crime then handgun bans
Pro forfeits that you dont need to ban all guns to reduce killings
Pro forfeits that many gun bans have not been effective
Guns are very effective in self defense, more then most other means
Its a constitutional right to own a gun
There is no feasible way for the government to actually collect all the guns in the US
Such a ban wont end all gun-related crime
Only a fraction of 1% of Americans die from gun related deaths
Of the 270,000,000 guns in the US, only a couple thousand are used to kill people, so only a fraction of guns are even used for nefarious purposes.

All in all, banning all guns is an idiotic idea
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
Travelman, you're absolutely delusional if you think the murder rate would drop in the wake of a blanket gun ban. That 31,000 could easily become 300,000, but more to the point, the removal of guns from law-abiding citizens would make them us more vulnerable to non-gun-related violent crime. A knife defending against a knife is a far cry from a gun defending against a gun.
Posted by travelman 3 years ago
travelman
Ugghh, there is a gun culture problem here in America. People just want to keep their guns without regard for the other 31,000 people killed by them. Why is this happening?

"Their paranoid fear of a possible dis-topic future is preventing us from addressing our actual dis-topic present. 31,000 actual deaths that are actually occurring, because some people have to remain vigilant of the rise of imaginary Hitler." - Jon Stewart, referring to gun rights advocates.

It's true.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
Actually in Japan you can own a shotgun for hunting purposes.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Hay, your conduct is deplorable (that's a real word, look it up) and juvenile in the extreme.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Hay, there were criminals far before the invention of guns, getting rid of guns wont get rid of criminals, they'll just use something else.
Posted by Hay 4 years ago
Hay
Your interested in women so go and have sexual things with them
Posted by Hay 4 years ago
Hay
imabench is much more dumbified than any dumb pieces of a mess of letters than anything in the world so shut up
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Hay that is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard.....
Posted by Hay 4 years ago
Hay
I believe no-one in the world should be allowed to even invent a gun if no-one had it than there would be no criminals.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by superkamal26 4 years ago
superkamal26
AlexianilabrownimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's debate performance was great. He rebutted pro's arguments and proved that banning guns would do more harm than good.
Vote Placed by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
AlexianilabrownimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote Con, but barely.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
AlexianilabrownimabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO's argument was pretty crappy, as PRO failed repeatedly to put his statistical data in context. When CON did the job for him, his own argument came back to bite him. CON repeatedly demonstrated that gun bans do not create a more "safe" environment. Regardless, PRO has no convincing argument in a world where weapons are necessary for individuals to protect themselves from those person-shaped-animals who think might makes right.
Vote Placed by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
AlexianilabrownimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay conduct: I saw con call the argument crappy so I was going to let it go until I saw con say that her entire debate was idiotic so conduct to pro for that. Argument: Pro could have done better and said civilians won't need self-defense as much because it would be a lot harder for criminals to attain guns. And pro could have brought up how often defensive gun use occurs. But I think Pro has sufficiently proved that whenever a country gets rid of guns there will be less deaths and I think that fulfills the BOP. But con did bring a good point that even though other countries have less guns, there was more deaths but that clearly depends on the type of people that are in the country. Good debate!
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
AlexianilabrownimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Con, naturally. Arguments to Con because Pro used a narrow focus that doesn't address the bigger picture; Con rightly showed exactly what that big picture shows. Sources to Con because Pro's sources actually helped Con's argument!