Guns should be banned in the USA.
Debate Rounds (3)
I will be arguing why guns should be banned in the USA. The USA has much bigger gun related deaths than any other 1st world country (1). That is kind of pathetic because the USA has the potential to be better than that. Gun control and abolishing guns overall is effective in other countries like Japan who made almost complete gun bans (2).
The USA has also a lot of mass murder rates overall. When there are other countries with better methods on tackling gun violence, the USA could take a lesson from the other countries policies and how effective they are. Good luck to pro!
Thank you for making this argument!
Banning guns from American citizens is unconstitutional, because i goes against the second amendment and the fact that "All citizens have the right to bear arms" (https://en.wikipedia.org...).
I want to also point out your sources are biased and that there hasn't been a proven effect with gun control and gun violence (http://www.infowars.com...). If anything, American citizens should have more guns to protect themselves.
Con argues that it is unconstitutional to ban guns in the USA. My argument to that is the topic of the debates says whether guns should be banned, even if it means it is unconstitutional. There is also the possibility of amending the constitution in the USA, even if it is highly improbable.
My sources are also not biased. The source you have is biased because it is from a conservative radio show, and my 2 sources are statistics.
Good luck next round!
You argue that the topic of the debate makes my argument weak but 'Should' still can be influenced by 'can'. If the U.S. constitution stops the 'should' by 'cannot' then your side of the argument is knocked down. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of the U.S. cannot be amended (https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...).
Your sources are biased as most of them are studies made by liberal organizations. My source may be from a talk show, but he still uses statistics.
Thanks and good luck to you too.
Your argument talking about 'Should's and 'Can's is still irrelevant. Should means that it is a good idea and it is beneficial. It is not affected about whether or not it is possible. About the Bill of Rights, there is such thing as additional amendments that can repeal the first 10.
You also admit that your source is biased. My sources may be biased but I have two sources against yours and they both have statistics.
Thanks for your rebuttals.
Regarding the relevancy of a 'can' and 'should' in a debate, we won't convince one another. Let us just leave it to the voters to decide. As for the Bill of Right, it counts as an amendment to make an additional amendment that alters the Bill of Rights.
As for the sources argument, my source still states statistics and they are then interpreted. Your sources are useless to me and the constitution.
Thanks for this debate!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.