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

Guns should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,455 times Debate No: 88920
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)




Those in the army/police forces should be the only ones to bare arms, thus this would GREATLY reduce shootings. Thus, there should be a strict procedure to ensure that illegal guns do not get in the country, this could be easily done by putting forward harsh fines/jail sentences for those caught importing or caught using illegal guns and also by checking parcels in customs (I can see the flaw in this one because it could reduce privacy). However, this also implies that hunting would have to be illegal which is quite controversial with a low of people. Moreover, this is not a bizarre idea, a lot of countries have strict gun laws. For example, the UK had a school shooting in the 1990s, only one, because after that, they made it illegal for citizens to bare arms. Furthermore, my position is that strict gun laws will greatly reduce shootings, however I am aware that people still have means to get arms and therefore shootings will never get eliminated because we don't live in a perfect world.


You will have to take Burden of Proof, only makes sence.

Ok, so one of my largest arguments you announce to everyone, "shootings will never get eliminated because we don't live in a perfect world."

We need guns because criminals DON'T buy guns.

They illegally obtain them.

Criminals DON'T go through background checks.

They will get a gun and it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.

Here are 12 cases of a mass shooting crippled by this:

You have been, disproved.

Good luck to you pro.
Debate Round No. 1


If there were a better system, criminals wouldn't be able to access guns. How come in the UK, mass shootings are rare? Because they have good gun control, but if you talk about America for example, there's total chaos because people are too "free", they will carry their bible and their shotgun and their confederate flag. Moreover, "they don't do background check on criminals?" They should, and in most cases (the USA yet fails again) people get asked for their criminal records, hell you even need one to apply for a job.
Guess you're the one debunked.


Once again criminal DON'T buy guns.

They are stolen.



Just better system will NOT help.

And there is not chaos in America.

The middle east is chaos.

ISIS? Yeah, ISIS. That is a chaotic situation.

Not 'Murica.

And 'Murica is 'Murica.

Our country exists because we wanted to be free.

Worship how we want to.

And here you go saying we shouldn't be so free.

America is a sanctuary for persecuted ideologies,
like christians or homosexual people.

Still don't like the idea of freedom?

You can get any job you want.

The only thing against this is competition for these jobs.

And our culture?

Two words: Modern. Music.

Film content, and remember the issue with "The Interview"?

Violence throughout? Pornographic? Nudity? Sexual content? No problem here. (not that i am supporting the listed)

Still complaining about how free we are?

Our freedom is a huge part of American culture.

People DIED trying to get what we have.

They took a ship across the ocean then told the
world's largest power to stop taxing us.

To stop ordering us.

To give us independence.

Then we won a terrible war.

Nearly 4,500 people died in the American Revolution.

If we can't own guns then our freedom thousands of people
died for is threatened and our constitution is violated.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


If criminals get guns illegally, which I'm not saying they don't, they do it because there is a LACK of security. Henceforth, why are there over a 100 reported school shootings in the USA? Because teens have easy access to guns, including those by their parents. Yes that contributes to your fact that they steal their guns, however, if the parents or whoever they get their guns from, never had them in the first place, hundreds of lives would've been saved.
Just because thousands of people died in the 1700s in the American revolution, doesn't mean that Americans should own guns. Consequentially, suicide bombers/terrorists (e.g. Eric Harris), died to prove his silly point, that doesn't make it just either. Moreover, Malta (if you don't know where it is, buy yourself a map) is just a tiny island that was involved in world war 2, thousands of people died as well, however Malta didn't give gun rights to people to protect themselves, they increased security measures and have never after been involved in such causalities (unless they got the guns from hunters, or bought illegally). They were dominated by the
1) phoenicians
2) carthaginians
3) Byzantines
4) arabs
5) normans
6) french
7) british
and yet they don't pass BIZARRE gun laws.

Mention ISIS? They're not American, however they are not European either. Moreover, how are the Christians persecuted? Have you forgotten the KKK? And most Americans vote for Christian politicians, they trust Christians more, if you're Christian in America, you don't have to worry about your religion being a cause of discrimination.


You have no sources so i cannot believe any numbers you give me.

I cannot believe you Malta stories either.

Neither can the voters of this debate.

And you completely ignored my 12 cases of mass
shootings stopped which was backed up with a source.

Here is the line again: "Here are 12 cases of a mass shooting crippled by this:;

But the people who died thing was because they
created the constitution and we should preserve it.

Mainly a pathos argument though.

Still has logical payload though.

And if we had teacher with guns, but they took a course or something.

Or if we just had security guards or police at schools that would solve the issue.

The only thing a gunman is afraid of is a good gunman.

The penalties will not stop criminals,
laws won't stop them from being armed,
armed civillians will stop them.

Also backed up by this source:

This was a good debate.

Thanks pro.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
Even if it is in the name of 'Murica
please vote un-biased and stop
vote bombing Pro.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: stschiffman// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro made lots of grammar mistakes, like saying "bare arms" when he should have said "bear arms". Pro went off topic when talking about religious persecution, which is why I'm giving Con the better conduct point. Con also had much better, more fact based sources and arguments than Pro did.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources and arguments are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side had more "fact based sources and arguments" doesn't establish why the latter were more convincing or why the former were more reliable. Being fact based doesn't mean that either of these accomplished anything within the context of the debate. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. While the voter has some discretion on this point, going off topic is not sufficient reason to award this point. (3) S&G is insufficiently explained. Unless Pro's case was actually difficult to read, which is not established by the example, this point should not be awarded.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: raskuseal// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: The-Holy-Macrel (Con) Had a better argument, as he had better conduct, better spelling/grammar, and he also had a more convincing argument as he also provided sources for his claims. opinionatedSloth (Pro) did not provide any sources for his argument, and he repeated himself a few times. The only thing he had better was a nicer format where everything was close together, instead of spread out, like TheHolyMarcel. opinionatedSloth also ignored some of Cons rebuttals. Chances are, some @$$hat is gonna report this because they disagreed with me, and lie saying that I didn't vote right so they can remove points from Con so it'll be easier for Pro to win.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct requires further explanation. The voter merely says that one side had better conduct without explaining how or why that is the case. (2) Arguments require further explanation. The sole reason the voter gives for explaining this point is that Pro used sources, which may inform the arguments vote, but cannot be the sole reason. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both sides in the debate, and explain how they contributed to the decision. (3) S&G requires further explanation. The voter only informs this portion of the vote by saying that Con had a nicer format, but then awards the point to Pro without explaining why Con's argument is so difficult to read as to warrant this point allocation.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
Will you vote then? XD
Posted by lavaWhiskers 2 years ago
Con definately won this debate. Pro used no sources, and overall, Con had more common sense and ability to see logic.
Posted by foxxhajti 2 years ago
That's quite interesting :o
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
I used "perussi" for my COC clan.
I also use it for a biome 3d username.

It means consumer and or fire.

Consumer as in a fire, like calling a fire a consumer of things.

I first used it to name a pokemon. XD
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
Translated hajti. Was wondering the meaning of your name.
Posted by foxxhajti 2 years ago
Foxx hajti*

(sorry but apparently special symbols aren't allowed on this website lol)
Posted by foxxhajti 2 years ago
Foxx &#295;ajti means f my life lol
No votes have been placed for this debate.