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

Laws Banning Guns for Citizens will Create a Safer Environment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,828 times Debate No: 31049
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I don't think gun bans will create a safer environment.


Well I do think gun bans will create a safer environment. Civilians don't exactly need assault weapons, and if we ban then, I know some criminals will be able to get them illegally, but if we ban them then not as many people will be able to get them. Civilians can use revolvers or pistols or rifles for self-defense since those guns are safer and won't spray bullets everywhere, possibly hitting and killing innocent bystanders. In the end, it doesn't matter how many bullets you shoot, if you hit the guy you want to hit without getting hit yourself, you win.
Debate Round No. 1


The idea that semi-auto rifles, "spray bullets everywhere" is based on ignorance of the firearms of which you are speaking and really is simply an appeal to emotion. Semi-Auto means one trigger pull, one shot. The same as a semi-auto pistol. And so-called "Assault Weapons" account for less than 2% of all fatal shootings, and much less than 1% of total murders. And there's nothing to suggest that those murders would not have occurred with a pistol had an "Assault Rifle" not been available.

Whether you believe civilians need "assault weapons", which is cosmetic term for rifles that simply look a certain way, or not is irrelevant to the question of whether a gun ban would create a safer environment or not. As for the "Assault Rifle" ban, it's already been tried under the Clinton administration and a 2004 National Academy of Sciences review of studies on violence failed to document one gun legislation that reduced violent crime and homicides. Those federal "Assault Weapon" bans expired that year and what followed was a reduction in murder and overall violent crime.

Even a 2013 memo put out by Obama's own Department of Justice (which he ignores), reported negative findings in "Assault Weapon" bans reducing violence or homicides.

But we're talking about overall gun bans here.

Basically the goal of gun bans is to create a safer environment by reducing the rates violent crimes and homicides. If it fails to accomplish this, then it fails to create a safer environment.

The best way to test whether gun bans do indeed reduce rates of violent crimes and homicides is to see where it has been applied before and look at the results.

In both UK and Australia, where gun bans were implemented, violent crime and homicides increased in the years following the ban.

Within the US, in Washington DC, one of the first places to have gun bans, murders within the city have increased, even as the average rate of murder nationwide was decreasing. Interestingly, the Supreme Court, which ruled that the 2nd Amendment covered citizens' rights to bear arms for self-defense, lifted the gun ban in DC, and what resulted was a decrease in murders.

In Kennesaw, Georgia, a law was implemented requiring every household to own a gun. Did the increased presence of guns suddenly create a crime wave? No. The very opposite happened. All crime, but especially violent crime decreased substantially.

There is nothing to suggest that a gun ban would reduce violence and homicides, and therefore, I have no reason to believe that a gun ban would indeed create a safer environment. I believe that guns in the presence of law-abiding citizens reduce violence and murder rates, not only by assisting those citizens to physically stop a criminal in the act, but also because the mere knowledge that law-abiding citizens MIGHT be armed does much cause criminals to act less frequently due to less risk to themselves. When criminals act less frequently, there are fewer cases of violent crime and fewer homicides. This results in a safer environment.


I have no idea where you are getting all your information. Could you post a source? A lot of what you are saying is outright lies. The reason that so many more people die of gun violence in the U.S. is our thinking. Most Americans think that they have a right to have however many guns they want, and in a lot of places, guns are introduced to children at a very young age. A lot of Americans have handled guns all their lives, and feel very comfortable around them. This shouldn't happen. Guns are killing machines, whether you like it or not they kill, and most of the time they attack not defend.

You say that the violent homicide rate increased the years following the ban was because in SANE countries, countries where peoples lives don't revolve around killing machines, homicide rates and violent crime rates fluctuate. Besides, saying that violent crime rates increased the years following the ban doesn't prove anything. 1,000 years later is years following the ban. 5,000,000 years later is the years following the ban. You have to be more specific to prove anything. And where are all your sources? If you are going to provide exact numbers, they you must provide sources.

When criminals act, they don't really think. Unless they have this elaborate plan, their crimes are usually crimes of passion, in-the-moment types of crime. They won't think "Hey, what if this person I'm going to mug has a gun?" They just do it. If they DID think, then we would have substantially less crime. But they don't. They don't usually think about what they are doing, because if they did, then they would see reason.

Since most crimes are crimes of passion, if they have guns easily available, then they will use those guns. Buying guns illegally takes time, thinking. If they have a gun in their house, or in their safe, they will go, grab their gun, and wreak their havoc unto the world.
Debate Round No. 2


2004 National Academy of Sciences Review
2013 DOJ Leaked Memo
Washington, DC
Kennesaw, GA
Australia and UK Crime Statistics from UNODC.

What's funny is that the burden of proof is actually on those who wish to impose gun bans, because they are the one's proposing a new, costly and ongoing program that may not work and diverts resources from things that might work. I've yet to see any proof that a gun ban would create a safer environment.

You have hypothetical and anecdotal situations about individual crimes, but they say nothing as to how much, or even if the absence of gun laws gun laws leads to higher overall murders and violence rates than if a gun ban on citizens were in effect. It says nothing as to whether it saves lives overall. It says nothing as to whether it creates a safer environment or not.

Using the misleading "Gun Violence/Deaths" is an often used statistic used by pro-gun control folks. It's misuse is what made me raise my eyebrow and look into the debate as a whole because I had previously been in the middle about gun control, slightly leaning left on the issue, as I do on many social issues.

The goal of gun-control is to promote a safer environment by reducing violent crime and homicides. Using "Gun Crime" stats begins with the assumption that guns are the problem and excludes any other possible explanations for the problem of violent crime and homicides and therefore it's use is deceptive and misleading. If gun violence/deaths go down, but violence/deaths by other means goes up to make up for the reduction, or even EXCEED the original statistics, the goal of a safer environment is NOT met.

If this is the case, it would mean you're imposing a costly and ongoing program than does not have a positive effect and possibly has a negative effect. This is potentially dangerous and squanders resources that can go toward something that DOES work.


Well, for one, look at all the other countries that have gun bans, and look at their deaths from firearms, and then look at us, who don't have gun bans and look at OUR deaths from firearms. There's your proof. Personally, I blame the screwed up American mentality, and I think that if we could all be more reasonable then we wouldn't have to do this, but since people just don't seem to understand that guns are dangerous, and that you shouldn't have ten guns stockpiled in your basement, we need to impose this ban, mainly to make sure that all Americans know how dangerous guns are. '

I thought my examples that I gave you made it clear that it WOULD save lives overall. It would stop any amateur murderers, murderers who were normal people until they snapped, since their crimes were crimes of passion, not plan. I think that it is pretty obvious that a gun ban would lessen the amount of guns people have, and therefore prevent people from dying since, without a gun most people suck at killing. I think that is really just simple knowledge, but what I'm interested in is the psychology of it. A lot of people support making marijuana legal, liberals especially, and conservatives argue that if we do that, people will think that it's ok and it's right to do drugs. Well I see the same basic concept here. Guns are dangerous killing machines, but a lot of Americans don't seem to understand that. I've said this before and I'll say it again, children as young as 6 in some places are introduced to guns, how to shoot, how to load, and the glory of being a good shot. Americans are pretty loose with their guns, and I'm almost certain that it is because they are gun-friendly, and they don't realize the magnitude of what a gun really is, and what it's true purpose is. A gun is not meant to be used lightly. I am also horrified that children are given toys like airsoft guns and paintball guns. I am horrified at how guns are being painted in children's minds as toys. I believe that this ban will fix it, because children will reason that the government must have a reason for banning guns.

And how are numbers misleading? I am very confused with that argument of yours. Sure, the context they're in can be misleading, but numbers are not misleading. In the situation you are describing, then they WOULD be misleading, but thankfully, that is not the case here. It just makes it that much simpler to see that guns ARE the problem. You say that if this is the case, but PurpleDrink, it is not, and we should thank whatever deity or deities there are for that. :)
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Nyx999 3 years ago
Thanks Sagey. :) I'm glad someone in the comments is at least a bit polite. I was feeling really depressed after DrHaz said that I had bad manners for asking for sources. And btw, I onlt provide sources when the other side asks for sources. Otherwise it's too much of a hassle.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
No, just that it is a subject I know a bit about, being in a relatively safe community gunwise (or lack of guns in the cities) plus having experience with guns, both in some army training and hunting vermin.
Just thought I'd throw in a comment.
Though I've really got nothing more to say on this topic!
I've unticked the response boxes, which I should have done after that first comment.
Enjoy your debate!!! :-D~
Posted by PurpleDrink 3 years ago
Are you stalking me Sagey? I explained the invalidity of using "Gun Crime/Death" statistics in my argument.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
BTW: Australia has banned such guns, except for those with proof that they require them like us on the land. There are very few deaths by shootings there.
Definitely a much safer environment.
It's impossible to go on a mass killing spree with knives. Easily stopped!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Frankly, I get a better kill rate with semi-automatic rifles than with fully automatic and waste less bullets.
I could rapid fire with a semi-automatic and make every bullet count either a kill or a severe wound.
I used to shoot rodents and rabbits when there was a rabbit plague with both a fully automatic .22 a semi-automatic .22 and occasionally an old WW1 bolt action .303.
For the mice plague I used a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun.
I was (probably still am) capable of hitting successive bulls-eyes firing without sights.
Probably because I had been using a BB gun from the age of 8 where the front sight dropped off only a couple of weeks after I got it. So my friend and I would shoot pieces of plastic out of each other's hands, him with sights, me without sights. I could shoot quicker than he, because it takes time to line up sights. I could swing around and take out a cabbage butterfly in a fraction of a second.
I could shoot 8 rats within a second with only 8 shots using the semi-automatic rifle.
If I used the fully automatic rifle, I'd still get all 8 rats, but I'd waste 8 more bullets at least.
So, if somebody can rapid fire accurately and make every shot count either a kill (people are bigger targets than rats and move slower) then it would be an ideal weapon for killing huge numbers in a massacre. Tasmanian massacre is one example of use of such a weapon that killed many.
They should be severely restricted, banned from city dwellers, only legalized for farmers who require such weapons for vermin control. :-D~ There's no use for such weapons in towns or cities, NONE!
Posted by DrHaz3 3 years ago
Pro failed to show any sources and used bad manners in claiming blatant lies with no evidence to support their claims. If the problem is our thinking than banning guns would still not make it safer because the problem would lay in our thinking. CON FTW! free nukes for law abiding citizens!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lizard 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Only con used sources for her argument, and pro called Americans "screwed up", which is uncalled for.