The Instigator
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
trendem
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Guns should be banned in the united states.

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 6 votes the winner is...
rougeagent21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,726 times Debate No: 6991
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

rougeagent21

Con

I stand in negation. I will allow my opponent to open.
trendem

Pro

I will endeavor to show 2 things:
(a) Civilian ownership of guns serve little utility
(b) Any utility is outweighed by the dangers of firearm misuse.

I will not bother debating constitutionality and whether a gun ban violates the 2nd amendment. First, firearms are already restricted, in several ways, in the USA. Second, the Constitution is made for Americans; Americans are not made for the Constitution. If I present justification that a gun ban benefits rather than harms Americans, the constitution can be changed, if so needed.

Moving on to my arguments:
(a) There is no concrete evidence that gun ownership lessens violence or robbery. (i) Criminals will simply transfer their violence to the population without guns. (ii) Desperate criminals will still attack people, gun or no gun.
(b) Gun ownership will increase violence in several different ways. (i) The owner might go crazy and shoot enemies. (ii) Even if the owner is stable, guns can be stolen and misused. (iii) Robbers, intimidated by guns, will be more likely to pursue a policy of "shoot first, steal later." (iv) Encounters between armed citizens and thugs will result in cases of violence and death in what would otherwise have been a non-violent theft.

Given that gun ownership benefits little, but threatens all, I urge you to vote neg.
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Con

I will first attack my opponent's case, and then move on to state my own.

"There is no concrete evidence that gun ownership lessens violence or robbery."

Now, while there not be actual numbers to prove this, guns are still necessary to protect the home and self. As my opponent stated, criminals will rob/attack people whether or not guns are around. The problem is: When guns are banned, only criminals will have them. This would only further the vulnerability of the citizen. (Besides being unconstitutional, which I will address later)

"Gun ownership will increase violence in several different ways."

My opponent says guns will be misused. Please realize this is true with any and all weapons, including fists. There will always be crazy people out there, guns or no guns. Again, if guns were banned, only the criminals and "whackos" would have them, further putting the general population at risk. This again would be unconstitutional. On to my argument.

1. Guns are necessary for the safety of a home to protect yourself and your property. 2. Guns serve as a weapon for self defense when ever the police fail to provide the services of protection to the general public. 3. Guns should not be banned because criminals will now be the only ones who have the guns, holding the general public's safety in danger. 4. Guns should not be banned in case of government oppressing the citizens. 5. A gun ban is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly states that US citizens have the right to bear arms. My opponent refuses to argue this, but he is unable to do so since the constitution applies directly to this debate. Please note the resolution says "in the United States." How is a country just if it contradicts the very document that it was based on? Banning guns would be hypocritical, and a violation of the citizens' rights.

"Resolved, Guns should be banned in the United States."
Negated.
trendem

Pro

trendem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Con

Well, seeing how my opponent has forfeited, I have won the debate, and urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
trendem

Pro

trendem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Oh, ok. Ya you can choose the length of time to post an argument. Its all good though ;)
Posted by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
I mean, I expected that each argument had a time limit of 2 days. I'm just new to online timed debate.
Posted by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
Sorry, rougeagent21. I was mentally expecting a voting period of 2 days, and I accidentally forfeited, twice! I concede the debate, as if it matters now.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
What happened trendem? You didn't post either of your last arguments?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21trendemTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Riley09 7 years ago
Riley09
rougeagent21trendemTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
rougeagent21trendemTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
rougeagent21trendemTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
rougeagent21trendemTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Demosthenes 7 years ago
Demosthenes
rougeagent21trendemTied
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:70