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

Is a gun ban necessary in America?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/5/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 761 times Debate No: 82145
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)





Unnecessary; not needed.

Ban; officially or legally prohibit.

Gun; A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

I am here to provide emphasis on why a gun ban is absolutely unnecessary, and possibly counter productive. I challenge famousdebater.

No trolling.
Sources required (except for conclusion unless absolutely necessary).
First round is acceptance.
2nd round is initial arguments.
3rd and 4th rounds are rebuttals and counter rebuttals.
5th round is purely closing statements.
And finally, enjoy debating!



Accepted. Thank you for challenging me on this topic.
Debate Round No. 1


Gun bans. Hillary Clinton has recently leaked plans of wanting to commence a gun confiscation when she is sworn into office. People that have become sick and tired of the constant mass shootings applaud the democratic presidential nominee for this. I must however truthfully inform all who oppose the 2nd amendment that they require reconsideration on the topic. Guns have been, are, and forever will and should be a part of the American lifestyle.

Nobody on the planet denies the right of a gazelle to use it's hooves and horns to fend off lions. What is the relative logic of anti gun activists? You guessed it, taking the hooves and horns off the gazelle will repulse the lion. Sadly, this is a bogus fact as anyone would know that making life easier for the predators will just get you MORE predators. This is similar to the fact that defenseless civilians would be the preffered prey of criminals. As a matter of fact, an interviewed criminal said that he was more terrified of armed civilians than he was of the police. He also stated that he did not care if there was a law prohibiting his guns, as he was a criminal, and would thus carry guns anyway.

This is the problem with the logic of gun ban enthusiasts. Anoher thing they fail to consider is the fact that VERY FEW people die to gun homicides compared to other causes of death. For instance, according to WHO (world health organization), there are 7.4 million deaths related to heart disease, 6.7 million deaths from stroke, and 1.5 million deaths from HIV/AIDS. On the other hand, gun deaths a year only amount to approximately 33,000 deaths according to the CDC. Also according to the CDC, approximately 34,000 people are killed in car wrecks. The thing is; You will never see anyone demanding a ban on cars, a ban on sex, or a ban of certain mecical equipment, as the pros exceed the cons of all listed. Despite the HUGE numbers compared to guns, guns remain on the headlines rather than stroke or heart attack, the true leading causes of death worldwide.

It is also imperative to note that gun bans did not work well for other countries in the past. Here are a few examples:

Joseph Stalin: disarmed the innocent civilians of Soviet Russia, then murdered 50 million unarmed men women and childeren over the course of his reign.
Mao Tse Tung: disarmed the civilians of China and proceeded to murder another 50 million unarmed men women and childeren throughout his regime.
Adolf Hitler: Lastly, the best and most well known example, Hitler was ELECTED BY HIS PEOPLE to be chancellor of Germany. Once in office, Hitler and the Nazi regime silenced all other government and made Hitler the Fuherer. He then proceeded to murder 30 million unarmed men women and childeren without any opposition from his people.

You may just laugh facts like that off, saying we are protected by the constitution. So what? Amendments can be changed by vote. Amendments can be repealed. THIS is perhaps the biggest reason why a gun ban cannot be allowed. Allowing such legislation is the gateway to stripping more and more rights, until you are pretty much no better off than the people of Kim Jong Il or Muammar Qaddafi.

Lastly is the fact the police cannot get to mass murder scenes quick enough to save lives. The deadliest mass shooting in history took the lives of 70+ unarmed civilians. It took the police 2 HOURS to arrive at the scene. Baically, the police will only be able to do an autopsy on your dead body after the fact instead of preventing the murder. Civilians with guns could shoot down a murderer before he had the chance to hurt anyone.

In the end, it appears quite clear that violating the American right to bear arms is a horrible idea and must be trashed. Thus, you should vote CON.


Allow us to hear pro's arguments...


C1 - Accidents

This contention links in with my previous rebuttal regarding self defense although in this case it is more general and applies to not only children. Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data.

But this year gun deaths are expected to surpass car deaths. That's according to a Center for American Progress report, which cites CDC data that shows guns will kill more Americans under 25 than cars in 2015. More than a quarter of the teenagers—15+ - who die of injuries in the United States are killed in gun-related incidents, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

An analysis by Bloomberg three years ago found shooting deaths in 2015 "will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend."

"Comparing the two national icons, cars and guns, yields “a statistic that really resonates with people," says Chelsea Parsons, co-author of the report for the Centre for American Progress. Resonance is certainly needed. There are about 320 [million] people in the United States, and nearly as many civilian firearms. And although the actual rate of gun ownership is declining, enthusiasts are keeping up the number in circulation." The Economist

C2 - The risk of mass shooting

Knowing that my opponent is from America, I am almost certain that they have heard of at least one of the mass school shootings in recent years. There have been over 150 school shootings in the last 50 years in the USA alone! That is not an exaggeration and I will provide multiple sources for this statistic just to remove any doubt from voters and my opponent. Now, lets compare that to the UK. The Uk has had 1 school massacre in the last 50 years and this was considered to be one of the deadliest firearms incidents in UK history. I didn't need to do much reasearch to realise that this school shooting was a lot less severe than the ones in the USA in terms of deaths. In this horrific event 1 teacher and 16 children were shot (not all of them were killed). Now let us compare this to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. This resulted in 20 children killed fatally shot and killed. 6 adult member of staff were also shot and killed. Adam Lanza (the shooter) then added to the death tally by commiting suicide on the scene of shooting. As well as this there were 2 non fatal injuries too. Although this may not be entirely relevant to this particular contention, the mass murderer also shot and killed his mother before the shooting. This is another reason as to why guns should be banned. Even with tighter regulation this will not completely elimate the possibility of this happening. I doubt that my opponent is pro school shootings. Since he is 15 and goes to school himself I would have thought that even one school shooting would have pursuaded him to be pro a gun ban. One school shooting is not worth having a gun for self defense. If you had the choice to keep guns for self defense or save those kids (and adults) who were killed in the Sandy Hook elementary school mass shooting what would you choose? By being Con a gun ban this essentially means that you would choose the guns over the children.

C3 - Effect on homicide rates

Guns in the home are far more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder because as far as homicides go, you are far more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a stranger. According to an article in University of Chicago Law Review by Frank Zimring, a criminology expert at UC Berkeley, more than two-thirds of killings are caused by spouses, lovers, friends, or neighbors. Zimring examines crime statistics in Chicago and breaks the numbers down by type of weapon, number of wounds, and location of the wounds. He finds that when the wound location was clearly intended to cause death, the use of a firearm instead of the next deadliest weapon (a knife) increased the chance of death of the victim by a factor of 5. This is called the "instrumentality effect" of guns.

In a broader analysis in Guns in America, Zimring and Hawkins continue to debunk the myth that if guns were not widely available, people would just find another way to kill each other (the classic "guns don't kill people, people do" argument). They point out that "if this were so, knife attacks in cities where guns were not so widely used would show a higher fatality rate" due to the expected substitution effect. But no such trend exists. Guns simply facilitate certain killings that would otherwise not be possible. As an example, Zimring and Hawkins explain that since guns are both more deadly and more versatile (can be used from a distance), they are used almost exclusively in police killings. Lastly, Zimring/Hawkins cite another study proving the instrumentality effect of guns: comparing wounds in the same location, attacks with higher caliber guns were much more likely to result in death than attacks with lower caliber guns. Without guns, altercations (usually between family members and friends) would be much less likely to result in a fatal injury.

A study by Kellerman found that people were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than in a home without one, further underscoring the predominance of family/friend murders among the homicide statistics. For the same reason, a regression analysis done by Mark Duggan in "More Guns, More Crime" found that looking at time lag data, local increases in gun ownership are soon followed by localized increases in homicide rates.

To understand the next study, we must first explore a legal distinction. A common misconception is that "assault" means an attack. However, in terms of the legal definition, "battery" means a violent attack and "assault" is a threat of bodily harm. Normally, an assault should result in nothing more than an argument, but the presence of a gun makes it much more likely than an assault will turn deadly. Zimring found that assaults were 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor possessed a firearm.

C4 - Guns Increase Crime

In relation to all of my previous contentions ...

“Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”

The majority of the research suggests the presence of gun in the home increase suicide, homicide, and accidents involved (as backed up by previous contentions). If this is correct, reducing the amount of homes with firearms would decrease suicide, homicide, and accidental risks. Another study using “data from 26 developed countries”, the study found “where guns are more available, there are more homicides”.

Guns are positively correlated with the homicide rate, accident rates and suicide rates and for these reasons a gun ban is necessary.


I have shown through detailed and well sourced evidence that a gun ban is the best approach for America to make and with that, I would like to hand it back over to my opponent for the rebuttals round.


Guns in America: A Reader, page 219

Journal of Political Economy, 2001, vol. 109, no. 5

Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Vol. 32;

Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to famous debater for the hearty argument. I shall now satisfy the growing hunger for a rebuttal...

C1: Educate to prevent accidents.

Wouldn't it be less of a pain to educate people through curriculum early on about gun safety rather than confiscating guns? I'd think so, especially considering that accidents happen from ignorant and ill informed people, not guns. Pro must take this into consideration.

C2: Mass murder locations.
Here is a list of mass shootings provided by (

12 killed
On July 20, 2012, 24-year-old James Holmes sprayed bullets on a midnight screening of the new Batman movie at a theater in Aurora, Colorado. In addition to the 12 killed, 58 were wounded. Defense attorneys tried unsuccessfully to argue that he was insane at the time of the attack; he wassentenced to life in prison in August.
32 killed
On April 16, 2007, 23-year-old Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people to death on the Blacksburg, Virginia, campus before killing himself. The dead included 27 students and five faculty members. Another 17 people were injured. Days after the shooting, the worst school shooting in the nation's history, NBC News received a package from Cho that contained a video of him ranting about rich "brats" and complaining about being bullied.
18 killed
On Aug. 1, 1966, former U.S. Marine Charles Joseph Whitman, 25, killed his mother and wife, then went on top of a tower at University of Texas at Austin and killed 16 others. He also wounded at least 30. Whitman had complained of physical and mental health issues before the attack. He was then shot by a police officer. An autopsy after his death revealed he had a brain tumor, but it was not clear whether that had affected his actions.
13 killed
On April 20, 1999, students Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, killed 12 other students and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Two dozen were injured. They then killed themselves in the school's library. In journal entries, the high school seniors had written about a desire to imitate events such as the Oklahoma City bombing.
See where all of the shootings occur? Yep! Those shootings took place in gun free zones like Schools, Universities, and theaters! Another website called ( said this about gun bans:

“Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting.
Would you willingly disarm your populace knowing that criminals will see the gun free zone as a "helpless victim zone", as defined by Richard Mack?

C3: Laws do not apply to the lawless

Refuting contentions 3 and 4 of pro, this is rather simple. Anyone would know that a criminal does not obey the laws. That is what criminals do. Heck, even the criminal interviewed in this youtube video ( admits to the fact that he wouldn't follow any gun laws, as he doesn't follow the laws to begin with. The criminal in this video also CLEARLY states that he is more afraid of armed civilians than he is of the police. I mean, come on gun ban enthusiasts! You should have known that criminals do not follow laws. This is one of the main reasons that gun bans will NEVER work.

C4: Totalitarian government

I shall state my contention exactly from my original in the opening statements:

Source: (
It is also imperative to note that gun bans did not work well for other countries in the past. Here are a few examples:
Joseph Stalin: disarmed the innocent civilians of Soviet Russia, then murdered 50 million unarmed men women and childeren over the course of his reign.
Mao Tse Tung: disarmed the civilians of China and proceeded to murder another 50 million unarmed men women and childeren throughout his regime.
Adolf Hitler: Lastly, the best and most well known example, Hitler was ELECTED BY HIS PEOPLE to be chancellor of Germany. Once in office, Hitler and the Nazi regime silenced all other government and made Hitler the Fuherer. He then proceeded to murder 30 million unarmed men women and childeren without any opposition from his people.
You may just laugh facts like that off, saying we are protected by the constitution. So what? Amendments can be changed by vote. Amendments can be repealed. THIS is perhaps the biggest reason why a gun ban cannot be allowed. Allowing such legislation is the gateway to stripping more and more rights, until you are pretty much no better off than the people of Kim Jong Il or Muammar Qaddafi.

I would also like to add to this contention by allowing the voters to know that when it comes to gun control, CONTROL is the key word. The government will only allow access to guns for people THEY trust. Basically, the citizens are the only ones that will not be allowed to have guns so the government can swoop in with SWAT teams and the army to exterminate anyone they do not agree with. Does that sound enjoyable? I think not.

In conclusion, it is VERY obvious that erasing the American 2nd amendment is a TERRIBLE idea, and it should go back to the intellectual pits of hell from which it came from. Thus, Con is the only viable choice.

Let us hear Pro's rebuttal.....


I will now refute Con's round 2 of this debate.

R1: Lion - Gazelle Analogy & Fear

"Given that between 40-45% of American households own a gun, and less than 0.1 percent of victims of property crime end up using a gun to stop a crime, it’s impossible to suggest that guns are being effectively used in self-defense. Rather than guns serving as a useful deterrent, they instead helped to directly facilitate crime: 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households between 2005 and 2010." (1)

This statistic is enough to show that the gazelle and lion analogy is faulty. A gazelle's hooves and horns are effective against lions. Clearly guns are not this effective against criminals for citizens. Therefore the analogy does not coincide and it fails based on the following facts.

My opponent then moves onto the topic of fear. He states that an interviewed criminal was more scarred of armed citizens and than the police. It doesn't matter that the criminal was more scarred of citizens with guns because my opponent concedes that he was a criminal. Since he was a criminal even if he did have this fear he still ultimately committed the crime. Also, even if voters do buy that this statistic works in Con's favour it has to be noted that this is severely mitigated since it was done out of 1 criminal. In order for statistics to have a major impact on the resolution high numbered statistics must be used. Numers as small as 1 do not play a major role in the debate.

He continues by showing that the criminal said that a gun ban would not stop him because he was a criminal and would have a gun anyway. This statement is rather unclear but what I gather from this is that the criminal is a criminal so he would have a stolen / illegal gun.

This is a simple problem that can be solved with the following syllogism:

P1: Guns are sold to the public
P2: Guns are stolen from these places
P3: If guns are banned then they will be harder to steal and obtain
C1: Criminals will have less access to guns through a gun ban
C2: A gun ban will be effective in stopping crime

P1 is a truism

P2 is also a truism.

P3 is something that only takes logic to consider to be a truism. If guns are less available to the public then they wont be needed in such a high quantity, if they aren't needed in such a high quantity then there wont be as many available for criminals to steal.

C1 has been proven through P3.

C2 is a fact. Guns serve no purpose as shown through P3.

R2: Death Comparison

This contentions purpose was to show that other things are more dangerous than guns. I will now show why this contention is faulty and has no impact upon the resolution.

Heart disease is not something that we can consistently stop at the moment. My previous syllogism shows that a gun ban can stop these deaths.

Stroke is the same. We cannot consistently stop a stroke. We can stop gun related deaths as my previous syllogism showed.

HIV / AIDS is a risk that people take when having sex. It can be genetic so that cannot be prevented either. HIV / AIDS is different because reproduction is necessary otherwise we will become extinct. Guns are not necessary, the UK public do not have guns and you do not see them all dying out because of it (2). Guns are not necessary and our certainly not as necessary as reproduction is.

Cars are needed for transport and work. Guns are not needed for getting around places and are not used for anything productive as my self defense rebuttal demonstrates.

My opponent's statistic that there are only 33,000 gun deaths is proposterous. It was a statstic from 2013 and only referred to the USA. Not the whole of both North and South America. The 2015 gun death statistic for the whole of America:

More than 100,000 people
in America are shot in murders and assaults (3)! This statistic excludes suicides and other gun related incidents.

R3: Failed Gun Bans

There are many factors to consider in this scenario. I will begin by addressing Joseph Stalin.

Joseph Stalin: Stalin was a dictator. There is not a dictatorship in America and this is a major factor to gun control. We elect who we feel will be a fitting president. I doubt that the state will murder 50 million unarmed men, women and children because we elect those that we feel safe with. A successful example (again) is the UK (2).

Mao Tse Tung: He was a Chinese communist. Communism is a failed and corrupt system I will not go into too much detail. The money distribution was poor and as a result the government stored the majority of the wealth and the rest of the country were poor and had little money to live on. This resulted in protesting and uprising against the government. They banned guns because of the government's motivation. If the current US government had these motivations then they would proposed the gun bans by now. The circumstances are different and my opponent has given no reason as to why I should assume that the reason why these gun bans have failed is because of the gun ban itself.

Hitler: This is a difficult and controversial case. These deaths occured during war. Wars almost always result in an increase in the death statistics. These people that Hitler murdered were not of his own country and therefore did not negatively impact upon the country iteslef at all.

Rebuttal 4: Changing Amendments

Since this is part of my opponent's burden he must actively prove that it is probable that there will be an ammendment change. It has never been the case that guns have not been legal in the America in over 100 years (4)! This shows that the population will most likely be voting for governments that protect our rights and consitutions.

Rebuttal 5: Mass Murder

This has been used as a contention in my favour but I will address this issue again with the same statistic that I used regarding self defense.

"Given that between 40-45% of American households own a gun, and less than 0.1 percent of victims of property crime end up using a gun to stop a crime, it’s impossible to suggest that guns are being effectively used in self-defense. Rather than guns serving as a useful deterrent, they instead helped to directly facilitate crime: 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households between 2005 and 2010." (1)

This shows that even if schools and civilians had access to guns they are extremely unlikely to actually use their guns in defense of themselves. Mass murder can be prevented due to the simple fact that these mass murderers need guns to commit these crimes. Without them, they will not be able to commit the mass murders with guns.


With reliable counter-statistics I have shown that my opponent's argument only reflects one side of the argument and that my arguments should be considered preferable to his. In the next round I plan to address his rebuttals to my contentions. Due to the arguements and rebuttals presented by me. The resolution is affirmed and therefore you ought to vote Pro!



Debate Round No. 3


The hunger grows deeper and stronger......Counter rebuttals shall satisfy......

C1: The fear theory

My opponent appears to claim that not very many criminals would be on the recieving end of a civilian prepared for self defense. However, this cannot be further from the truth as this montage ( among MANY others can be found on youtube, with each one showing the criminal being chased off by the armed and ready civilian. If you ban guns, then you will NEVER have a crime stopped this early, no matter HOW few people can actualy do such a thing, as a few people looking after themselves like anyone should is better than none. Also with a gun ban, criminals will be safer doing their jobs than ever before as they can simply go to deep web links such as this one here (http://gunsnbmobn7evasc.onion...). That is just one link off of the Hidden Wiki, AKA the deep web that sells guns, illegal or not. There are MANY more links to buy guns and to do other things, like drugs, fake ids, hitmen, and there are even rumors of CP and Illuminati websites. The deep web is the wild west of the internet. Even worse is the fact that the browser to access a link like a .onion is the TOR browser, which you can get almost ANYWHERE, whether it be phone, PC or Tablet. Also add on to that by knowing that all actions done on that browser are COMPLETELY anonymous, so you can literally have an UZI shipped to your front door for a few hundred bitcoins, and nobody would ever notice. If you want to break the lawless, you MUST deal with the deep web first.

C2: Deaths comparison

My opponent has failed to take note that there ARE safety precautions that can prevent health issues such as heart disease and HIV. I shall now show what the CDC has to say about this: ( and (
My opponent has failed to consider the already PLENTIFUL strategies we can use to prevent diseases such as HIV and heart disease, such as healthier lifestyles and not exchanging sexual intercourse with large numbers of people. This means that diseases as such can EASILY be stopped before they even happen, invalidating the rebuttal contention of my opponent. And again, DESPITE the fact that heart disease and HIV and drunk driving accidents can be easily be prevented, they still claim more lives than guns do. Yet you NEVER hear about the horrors of cars or the treacherous mistakes of doctors, as there are already many percieved goods to each. Why then, if guns claim less people than MANY of the other causes of death on earth, and the fact that they also have uses such as self defense, hunting, recreation, sport, etc., why are guns the only one constantly on the headlines? I don't get it. I seriously think the press would be more focused on rampant diseases and obesity than they would be on guns.

C3: PRIME: Hitler

It appears that my opponent believes that someone like hitler could never possibly be elected to office. I however know that such a statement cannot be FURTHER from the truth. You can already look at how secretive the government already is. Who knows what on earth politicians think when they are in office? They could be the 21st century Hitler and you won't know since you cannot get inside their minds and think their thoughts. Here is what ( had to say about hitler:

Adolf Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Party. He was the absolute dictator of Germany from 1934 to 1945. He gained support by promoting values like German nationalism and anti-semitism. Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933 and began the Third Reich. Hitler was power hungry as all heck, hated the living daylights out of Jews (and others), and wanted hegemony in Europe. The militarization that was needed to complete such a lofty goal led to the outbreak of World War II. Nazi forces engaged in the systematic murder of as many as 17 million civilians, an estimated six million of whom were Jews, and 1.5 million Romanis.
Yep, that definently looks like a lot of civilian blood. He either gassed his victims or worked them to death in camps. Hitler didnt fall from his ELECTED status since he took the German's guns, and silenced all other government afterwards, and killed the 17 million civilians when he knew that they could not resist. I hate to break it to you, but something like that can DEFINENTLY happen with anyone in America.

C4: Threatened Amendments

I cannot show it the way ( does enough. This guy is already suggesting a change. I see the legeslation being possible.

C5: EMPHASIS on the mass murder locations:

Seriously look at where most mass shootings are happening; schools, churches, theaters, parks, etc. They are already gun free zones, which in the eye of a criminal is a "helpless victim zone" as described by Richard Mack in my previously stated contention. That is why so many people die to mass shooters: when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Take this case for instance:

July 22, 2011: Confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik kills 77 in Norway in twin attacks: a bombing in downtown Oslo and a shooting massacre at a youth camp outside the capital. The self-styled anti-Muslim militant admitted both attacks.

The sad thing about this shooting: the police were 2 HOURS away. They only got there by the time 70 people were dead. That is why civilians NEED private guns they can readily have for self defense, as the police cannot monitor you 24/7. You have to look out for yourself, too. Would rather go down fighting than end up as another helpless victim.

C6: Other uses for guns

This will be the simplest of my contentions. Guns are now weaved into the fabric of American culture, from Boy Scouts to Top Shot. Guns have MANY uses other than self defense. These include, but are not limited to:
Recreational target practice
Olympics event
Skeet shooting
Material testing
Guns have many purposes outside of harming others, and the rich culture in America tied to guns is almost too plentiful to name. Just face it: how do you expect to take 300+ MILLION guns from people that are firmly attached to them? Long story short, it isn't going to look pretty.

In conclusion, I have solidified my case on why gun bans are incredibly illogical and must not be introduced to legislation. I thus urge all viewing voters to cast your vote to the only reasonable choice: Con.

Let us hear pro's counter rebuttals....


C1: Educate to prevent accidents.

This is completely insufficient. There is already education regarding guns it isn't necessarily about people who don't know how to use guns. It is in regards to people thinking that somebody has broken into their house and then they end up shooting and injuring / killing a friend or family member. Education won't help in this scenario because the fire of a gun is an act based off instinct. I will put a bit of biology in here.

You have receptors on your fingers. So when you touch something extremely hot or cold, the impulse travels from the receptors, through the neurotransmitters and onto the sensory neuron. It then travels through neurotransmitters again and onto the relay neuron. It is then sent to the spinal cord and onto the motor neuron. Taking this impulse to the brain will take too long and a quick reaction is needed, therefore instead of going to the brain it sends the impulse back down causing you to react without having to think about it [1]. The same can be applied to using a gun. When you are scarred you react quickly to sudden movement and if you think that there is a break in and then suddenly a family member walks in you are going to immediately fire without having to think. If you aren't thinking about firing then you certainly aren't thinking about your education. Therefore, my opponent's rebuttal falls short.

C2: Mass Murder Locations

I thank my opponent for listing the mass murder locations because what this does is boost up my case. I will quote these words from my opponent.

" James Holmes sprayed bullets on a midnight screening of the new Batman movie "

This is clearly an abuse of guns and gun rights. This is not a good example to counter my mass murder point. All this does is show that guns should not remain legal because people are going to commit these horrific crimes.

"Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people to death "

This is also a bad example because it is in support of my case not his.

They may have all taken place in gun free zones but the problem with this is evident. These are a very small perecentage of all mass murders. Secondly, the reason that we have these shooting is because of gun free zones - you are correct. We shouldn't have specific gun free zones because it then allows people to bring guns from gun zones and bring them into gun free zones. We should ban guns in America so that the whole of America is a gun free zone and therefore there won't be anywhere to get these guns and bring them in to the gun free zone. Take the following analogy.

There is a room in a school where you aren't allowed mobile phones. In the room next door you are allowed mobile phones. It is easy for a person to simply walk in the mobile free room by hiding their mobile phone in their bag or their pocket. They can then take it out and use it. This is fairly simple and it is not unrealistic to assume that this does happen in some sort of way at schools. If mobile phones were banned in the whole country then it is unlikely that somebody will be able to get hold of a mobile phone, let alone bring one into the school.

Now let's apply this to a gun.

There is a school where you aren't allowed guns. Outside the school you are allowed guns. Therefore it is simple to conceal a gun and bring it into the school and take it out and use it without anybody knowing before. This is fairly simple and is not unrealistic to assume since this has happened before in school as my opponent has cited in R3. If guns were banned in the country (in this case the whole of America), then it is unlikely that somebody will be able to get hold of a mobile phone let alone bring one into the school and use it.

I would disarm the populus because the criminals come under the populus.

C3: Laws do not apply to the lawless

Okay, firstly this is severly mitigated since this is one criminal out of 13,120,947 in the USA reported by the FBI in their most recent crime statistical report [2]. Secondly, a gun ban isn't a restriction of any kind. A gun ban is a full on removal of all guns to civilians. I will now reiterate the fact that if you have guns being sold to civilians then there will obviously be a higher demand for guns. This higher demand means that there will be more guns that are acceccepable to the public. Since there are more guns that are accessable to the public then criminals can easily steal these. With a gun ban all sensible citizens will not have guns and therefore criminals will find it more difficult to obtain illegal guns. The UK is a brilliant example to show that a gun ban has been effective [3].

C4: Totalitarian government

So my opponent re-states his contention (which I responded to) so I will not refute this. My opponent then goes on to state that SWAT teams will come down and exterminate all that disagree. This is part of my opponent's burden to show that this is likely to happen and it is not my job to say why it is not. Nevertheless, I will use the UK as an example again. In the UK citizens do not have access to guns and the government has not done anything to kill or exterminate anybody. The UK and US are allies and generally make similar actions in response to global issues that don't just effect their country [4]. Since they are allies and often make similar decisions it would be abnormal for the US government to do this and as well as this - if the US government really had that motive then they would have banned guns already. Since they have not done this and currently have no plan of doing this I think that this provides substancial evidence proving your claim and rebuttal wrong.

Over to Con ...



Debate Round No. 4


The hunger has been resolved, cases shown. It is time to bring everything here to conclusion:

In the end, it should be QUITE clear to you the voter that taking away the 2nd amendment should not even be CONSIDERED to be suggested in congress. I mean, you don't have to abandon your first amendment rights while at Honolulu, and you do not have to surrender your 4th amendment rights when you enter St. Louis, nor must you give up your 7th amendment rights the moment you walk into D.C. Most of you would oppose such a thing. So what would make you want to force citizens to hand over their second amendment rights when you are in the U.S? The second amendment should be the most CHERISHED of the amendments because it is the amendment that gives america the RIGHT to defend themselves, the RIGHT to attack an oppressive government. It EMPOWERS the people. The government does not fear a piece of paper that cannot possibly stop them from yanking the rights of Americans away.

Take a look at the Patriot Act. It gives the government the power to EAVESDROP any conversation at any time wihout warrant. Sound familiar? Yep! Violation of the fourth amendment. And also many non mainstream news shows are woeing at the fact that the FBI is developing ways to identify more and more physical traits to "predict" crimes before they happen, allowing them to charge you with crimes before you even commit them. Sounds good, but that's taking away your 7th amendment rights to trial by a jury of peers. Wake up, America. It is VERY obvious. The government is trying to make reasons to CONTROL you. 9/11 is an example. That gave birth to the hated Patriot Act signed into law by the Bush administration. Crimes "justify" the FBI to take your 7th amendment rights, even if you do not commit a crime. Will you allow the government to take your 2nd amendment rights, bringing the lie riddled promise that it would promote safety, when in reality, it just gives the corrupted government of our society yet another excuse to CONTROL you?

Until there is no such thing as criminals, no such thing as lies, no such thing as government corruption, and the world has achieved the unachievable by becoming perfect, then I MIGHT consider. But sadly, the world will NEVER be perfect, ever. Thus it is my RIGHT to defend myself from criminals, and from TYRANNY. Do not let big brother fool you with gun control, as CONTROL is the key word. It has always been. Open your eyes, America. Look at what your government is doing to you.

All said and done, I KNOW that EVERYONE here opposes tyranny. If this is true, then the only viable choice is con. Choose your RIGHTS over their CONTROL. I rest my case.

Allow me to take a moment to thank famousdebater for debating me on this topic. I HIGHLY enjoyed this debate and I wish to thank famous for his time.


I am really tempted to respond to my opponent but since this round is just for concluding and crystallizing the debate I will resist the urge and just conclude the debate.


So before I dig into the conclusion I would like to thank Con for a fun and very interesting debate. I wasn't particularly interested in this topic before this debate but now I think I've got back into debating it, so thanks for that con.

The burdens were split on this debate (as you can probably tell). In order for my opponent to meet their burden of proof they must do the following:

P1: Successfully prove my (Pro's / Con's) arguments to be false or irrelevant
P2: Prove strong arguments that are not successfully refuted by Pro / Con
C1: If this is met then Con wins the debate

This applies both ways. Meaning that if I mannage to do this then I win the debate. At the beginning of this debate Con introduced 5 key arguments (essential for him to meet P2).

At the beginning of the debate I introduced 4 key arguments (key to me meeting P2).

Con unsuccessfully responds to my case and therefore my arguments stand. Whilst Con relied on a montage to prove my arguments wrong I relied on strong and well sourced evidence to back up my counter rebuttals and that is why my arguments do stand.

Pro (I) successfully responded to my opponent's case by not relying on youtube, but by relying on evidence and facts to prove my claims and arguments preferable to con's.

Due to this, I meet P2 and my opponent does not.

I have also met P1 whilst my opponent has not. This is already proven by P2 since by providing strong arguments that aren't successfully refuted by my opponent I have also proven my opponent's case to be wrong with strong evidence. My opponent relied on assertions and youtube videos to support his case which was easily responded to by me in my counter rebuttals.

My opponent provided arguments in the final round and therefore violates the rules that he presented in R1 and therefore as well as me meeting my BOP my opponent has also broken their own rules. I urge voters to vote Pro and I thank Con for an enjoyable debate.


Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by famousdebater 11 months ago
Thanks Forever23.
Posted by Forever23 11 months ago
I think that I would vote for the proposition. The con did not refute 3 of the propositions points. Many of the refutation attempts did not count because they were irrelevant to the debate.
The prop on the other hand refuted each of the cons points with killer statistics such as "4-45% of American households own a gun, and less than 0.1 percent of victims of property crime end up using a gun to stop a crime, it"s impossible to suggest that guns are being effectively used in self-defense."The cons statistics were not nearly as direct and not nearly as clarifying.
The con though had better sources. I would suggest prop not use sources such as Wikipedia since that site has mostly user posts and at the end of the day nay not be so reliable.
For con I would suggest sign posting which is outlining your points in bold just like the pro did.

Great debate both sides!
Posted by famousdebater 11 months ago
Thanks for the vote bala.
Posted by fire_wings 11 months ago
I will soon get a vote.
Posted by famousdebater 11 months ago
Many of my sources Pro / Con sites. This means that they provide arguments for both sides of the debate.
Posted by MeargleSchmeargle 11 months ago
Just as a final note: who knows if your sources are truly relevant? Bias? Lies? Just things to consider. This is why I take a more "do you want this or this" approach to my debates.
Posted by MeargleSchmeargle 11 months ago
Alright. Come at me, famous. I'm ready for you.
Posted by AbatementYogin 11 months ago
Along with gun control, you support progressive taxes which are not libertarian, you support welfare, again not libertarian.

So yes, you're a liberal. You hold multiple views that violate the NAP.
Posted by MeargleSchmeargle 11 months ago
Prepare for the thrill of the counter rebuttal.
Posted by famousdebater 11 months ago
I support a small government and you will notice that in my assisted suicide and euthanasia debates. I am pro legalising most drugs and I am pro abortion. I am con a cigarette ban too. Is that not libertarian enough for you?

Just because I am nagaunst one libertarian belief, that doesn't mean that I am not a libertarian.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Forever23 11 months ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Its all in here :
Vote Placed by Balacafa 11 months ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is simple. There was a rule violation in the final round where Con brought up new arguments. The final round was for 'purely closing statements' as Con put it himself in the first round/ This is an easy victory for Pro based on this alone.