The Instigator
AgnosticRadar
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
montero
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Guns should be banned

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 3 votes the winner is...
AgnosticRadar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 566 times Debate No: 44816
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

AgnosticRadar

Con

Guns are too vital for saving lives! The lowest crime rates in America are in the places where gun rights are more relaxed. This is proven in the article that I linked below.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com...
montero

Pro

"Guns" and "Saving lives" don't belong in the same sentence. If ALL guns in america were banned today, we would not see a decrease in gun violence, we would see no gun violence if any. Guns are mainly used to protect and defend households, but this wouldn't even be an issue if the attacker never had a gun to begin with!
Debate Round No. 1
AgnosticRadar

Con

First of all I want to thank Pro for accepting this debate

Lets do this

Argument #1:
"Guns" and "Saving lives" don't belong in the same sentence."

For the above argument, you say that guns cannot save lives, or should not be in the same sentence? Well that is purely bullcrap, everyday police carry guns to protect the innocent, and every day soldiers are protecting the very thing we take for granted. Freedom. Although you are correct in the statement "If the attacker never had a gun to begin with!" There should be stricter laws in how to get the weapons, but even if we did that people could just buy weapons off the street. So banning guns would be futile.

Argument #2:
"If ALL guns in america were banned today, we would not see a decrease in gun violence, we would see no gun violence if any."

If all guns in America were banned, there would be a total outbreak!
montero

Pro

Police carry guns to protect the innocent from the people WITH GUNS. If guns were banned, this wouldn't be a problem and STRICT laws would be implemented to get them off the streets. Anyone who would own a gun in this time, the time they are banned, it would be clear to the police that the gun is owned and bought illegally and this person would be put to justice. So no one would want to even have a gun during this time!

A total outbreak? A total outbreak with what? They have no guns to stir up any more trouble.

Guns are instruments of death and you may argue it is the person pulling the trigger, but this wouldn't be a problem if guns weren't here at all.
Debate Round No. 2
AgnosticRadar

Con

Thank you for the response.

To start off, guns will never be banned. Americans love their guns too much.

1st Argument:
For your argument:
"Police carry guns to protect the innocent from the people WITH GUNS. If guns were banned, this wouldn't be a problem and STRICT laws would be implemented to get them off the streets."

Yes there would be a problem, even you tried to ban every gun the U.S. (which you can't because its a violation of the second amendment) There would still be riots and out rages towards any public figure, and this might be congressman, senators, and just the government heads in general. And you said that there wouldn't be an outbreak because there is no guns to have an outbreak with, well thats wrong, people can have them smuggled in, or they can just use and object around their house to kill people. This is just a true fact.

2nd argument:
"Guns are instruments of death and you may argue it is the person pulling the trigger, but this wouldn't be a problem if guns weren't here at all."

Although you are partially correct with the above statement, you are still very much incorrect. It would be physically impossible to ban EVERY gun in America, and if the government tried to audit a civilians gun stash, or tried to take it, there would be complete chaos from the NRA. This organization is very powerful, and is not afraid to kick some butt to get their point across.

This concludes my 2nd set of arguments. I am eager to hear my opponents set.
montero

Pro

You are right "Guns will never be banned", but the point of this debate is to see whether it should or should not. Not what is going to happen in reality. But in reality the right for citizens to bear arms has caused more negative effects than positive. Shootings and crime are a common thing and we have done nothing to change this. Guns are far too accessible in this country and far too dangerous. It provides power to the enemy. Using guns for self defence, just adds to the number of people with this weapon of death. We can't change the motives of people, but we can limit the casualties by removing the common weapon of choice, the gun, from the offender's hands.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
AgnosticRadarmonteroTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro lives in a fantasy world, and Con is overly pessimistic. It's interesting that Pro decides to take the tack of just banning all guns (that's not necessarily the resolution here), but I simply don't see any real world arguments from him. He's practically assuming that all guns will disappear from the hands of those who currently own them (we can't even track all the guns that are currently owned) and that everyone will be forced to live in a world that lacks them following such a ban. Not going to happen. A black market is likely, and people will almost certainly riot. As for Pro, that first argument is correlative, not causative, the second need not happen in a gun ban, and it's really your third that you win on in this case. I do buy that public outcry would be a problem, even if I don't see all the links that should be explaining why. Also, sources go Con, just because he had one.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 2 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
AgnosticRadarmonteroTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were extremely under-developed but the facts, and not just the ones presented by con, point towards con.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
AgnosticRadarmonteroTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both side made assertions but Pro made better arguments by stating "Gun Rights" has caused more negative impact than positive. Also I personally agree Crime rates could be brought down by impacting strict rules for "Gun Rights".