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

Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,266 times Debate No: 15060
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)




I reject the resolution that the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States of America. Firearms, especially handguns, play an important role in our society: they help those who otherwise could not defend themselves effectively defend against forms of aggression. It is realistic to think that handguns has lead to many crimes in the USA, but it seems it will only be more of a detriment to ban them.

private ownership: Private property is the tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner's consent.

handgun: A handgun is a firearm designed to be held and operated by one hand, with the other hand optionally supporting the shooting hand.

United States: North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776

My first contention is that those who are otherwise unable to absolutely defend themselves would be unable to absolutely defend themselves.
My second contention is that (being USA is a densely populated country) banning handguns would cause violent crime to rise.
My third contention is that it directly violates the Second Amendment right of United States citizens.

I will now elaborate on my contentions.

1st) There are a wide variety of people who actively carry handguns on their person on a daily basis, as well as those who keep them at home for home protection against burglars, murderers and other home intruders. Realistically speaking, the only true conventional way of stopping a person from continuing to put your life in IMMEDIATE danger is to pull a firearm on him/and or kill him, in this case with a handgun being the most preferable carry firearm.

2st) It is widely known that gun control on high population areas results in a negative way. A good example is the Draconian handgun bill in the United Kingdom, in which resulted in a violent crime increase of 69%. This also can be seen in Australia, where Australian tax payers paid over 500 million dollars for the government to confiscate 7 million firearms. The direct result to this was a 3% increase in homicide rates.

3rd) The Supreme Court of the USA ruled that the Second Amendment applies to citizens abroad the United States. Banning firearms would directly violate the Second Amendent of law-abiding citizens, and the counter-argument to citizens who do NOT abide by the law is not valid, for legallity is clearly found in my definition of private ownership.

*I will cite definitions and articles of my statistics UPON REQUEST*


I would like to thank Jesus Christ for Resurrecting Ronald McReagan for debate. I will respond to his contentions one by one.

1. So if a guy was downstairs drinking milk from your fridge you would shoot him? He is really putting your life in danger. I know your response will be "He could be putting my life in danger!" With what? Because the burglar is probably aware that there are hicks who shoot to kill for them stealing there china, so like you said "the only true conventional way of stopping a person from continuing to put your life in IMMEDIATE danger is to pull a firearm on him/and or kill him." So when you go down stairs, and say "Put your hands up or I will kill you" (If you have the decency) To your theory his life is in immediate danger, so he will have to pull his firearm at you, and shoot. That bullet could hit you, or it could hit your wife who is watching fox news in the other room, and kill her. So if guns didn't exist that wouldn't have happened. You would have walked in, and said "I will stab you." Well you have to be close to stab someone so he could conventionally leave without any trouble or deaths, which I bet he probably would because who wants to get into a knife fight? So without guns there would be less murders.

2. In Native American tribes in the 1600's crime was probably non-existent to very small amounts like stealing a pear, and they didn't have guns? Without guns there would be no gun deaths.

3. The supreme court supported segregation so is that really a good source? Maybe it is, because you Ronald McReagen in said this ""If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so" And opposed the Civil Rights act of 1964.

I hope to hear from my opponent soon, and hopes his Alzheimer's that he had in office ( doesn't affect his debating abilities.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to begin this round by stating my opponent has NOT defined his definitions, so thus he, by default, agrees with the definitions I have provided.

Would I shoot him at first? Definitely not, but that's not what I've stated. I stated that it is right to kill the attacker if your life is put in immediate danger. Obviously, I would warn the intruder (telling him to freeze, get on the ground, ect), and if he attacks with a firearm or lethal object, I would have to kill him; for wounding an attacker is most of the time punishable in court. Also, to the opponent, guns exist, you can't control that. One cannot simply just travel back in time and prevent the creation of firearms, they are here. Also, you are STRAYING off-topic. This debate isn't over gun legality in general, it's on the legality of handguns.

2) My opponent's comparison to the society of the Native Americans in the 17th century is very unrealistic. They were a single-cultured society, which is not comparable to the society of the USA. The USA, of which, is a society of numerous cultures, ethnics and languages. Thus, I can safely state that the low crime rate of the Native Americans was primarily based on their strict-disciplinary lifestyle and single-cultured society. The presence of weaponry would have no effect, due to that it is common knowledge that every male of the numerous Native American tribes were armed with hunting knives, spears, bows & arrows, blunt weapons and numerous other forms of weaponry. My opponent's Native American example is irrelevant.

"Without guns there would be no gun deaths" - My Opponent
My opponent has bluntly made a false statement, due to that firearms can be created by the simplest of engineers that we call gunsmiths. One could buy a 5 & 1/2 millimeter pipe and make their own ammunition (obviously, an ammunition type of reasonable velocity), and thus create what we call "zip gun." This weapon can be used to kill a human being quite effectively. Thus, I have rendered my opponent's statement invalid.

3) The Supreme Court of America interprets the United States Constitution, so yes, they are indeed a good source. Racism is a political ideology (not that I support it, I am against racism) and is allowed in the political world, but it is often frowned upon. Ronald Reagan's address to the Civil Rights movement was politically unbiased, and ethically right, for one has the right to regulate their business/service to their heart's content, regardless of others' opposition. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
Also, my opponent continues to label me as "Ronald Reagen", but I am not such person. My name is Joseph Aaron Roy.

My opponent has failed to refute any of my contentions, but instead has only made spiteful insults and even resulted to name calling (the constant "Ronald McReagan" remarks are becoming quite fruitless.) To reiterate, my opponent has done nothing but insult, use false scenarios and comparisons, and the blunt use of political bias which is widely frowned upon in the debating world, for debating requires one to effectively debate for both pro and con cases.

Vote CON.


Ronald, I am impressed, but after all of this I still can't take you seriously. You have used terms such as " becoming quite fruitless." Who the eff uses the word fruitless? What is this a fruity vocab showdown?

Ronny I would like you to answer a question for me. If you answer it right I will give in, and bow down to your cooperations.

That is the primary defense for gun control, and I don't think you can even rebut against this because of your lack of knowledge because of Alzheimer's.
I would like to thank Ronald McRegaen for debating this subject, and await his response to the ultimate question. Which I am sure will be
"This is irrelevant.. Why am I even debating you? You are off topic, and have sent me a video of a murderer. Are you crazy?"
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent is persistent in claiming I am "Ronald McReagan", but I'm not sure such man exist. Reagan's full name was Ronald Wilson Reagan, not Ronald "McReagan". I will once state again, I am not Ronald Reagan incarnate. My name is Joseph Aaron Roy, student at Midlothian High School. I am also on the Varsity Debate team, of which I participate in Public Forum Debate, and I am an official member of the NFL (National Forensics League.) I hope these credentials clarify my identity. As for the picture on my profile, it is not a picture of "Ronald McReagan", it is a picture of Richard Milhouse Nixon. I placed him as my profile picture because I always believed he had a bold, dignified look about him.

My opponent also claims I sent him a video of a murderer, which I have not.

My opponent also claims the main intention of gun control is to lessen gun crime and violent crime, which is partially true and false. Gun crime does fall, but violet crime soars in result to gun control. This can be seen in the crime statistics of the UK, Australia, and various high population countries around the world.

"This is irrelevant.. Why am I even debating you? You are off topic, and have sent me a video of a murderer. Are you crazy?"
I have not sent you a video of a murderer, and no, I am not crazy. The last time I had a mental examination, I was passed as a very much sane human being.

It seems all my opponent has resulted to "trolling" rather than intellectual debating. I'd rather much have an intellectual debate rather than a close-minded fiesta of stochastic levels.

Vote CON


Ok Ronald, I didn't ask you to make up a whole history of a complete loser??? National Forensics League? You are quite the story teller Hansel.This isn't soap opera time.

Why did you have a mental examination? One doesn't go into having something as serious as a mental examination unless them, their peers, or authority (parents or teachers) think they are crazy.
I am not trolling? I am receiving videos from you of murders. I am scared, that you, and Alexander Haig will come, and shoot me.
This isn't a fiesta. This is serious.
I would have to agree with my opponent. VOTE CON or you will be probably shot. I am sorry this had to get so serious Ronny, I should have known this would have come to violence.
God Bless America
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has not provided anything with me to refute in terms to the topic at hand, but only has made crazed assumptions and trolled throughout the entire debate. His first rebuttal of my contentions was semi-ontopic, but I can only assume he accepted his own defeat and turned to blunt trolling in his own defense. I am not Ronald Reagan, nor will I ever be him.

Vote CON


Read this while listening to this video to get the full effect of the statement. Seriously..
Ronald, The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties by calling you by your stripper name, I did. ;) But you can't judge a whole debate by the behavior of a few sick, individuals like you. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole debate system? And if the whole debate system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our debate institutions in general? I put it to you, RONALD MCREAGEN! Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen! VOTE PRO!
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Exodiake 2 years ago
This debate round was very nice and well formed, despite the Pro side being incompetent to debate this topic. The con laid out their points well, and the Pro treated this as a game. As such, the only side to debate this topic in the slightest is the Con.
Posted by HJM 2 years ago
I liked to read this Debate. But for the Con side. I feel you spent too much time talking about your oppents personal attacks on you instead of just pointing out that he isn't supporting his points but instead attacking you directly. Which is not only boring to read, but it also makes you sound desperate to get your identity across. Which is not needed in a debate round of this type ( unless asked for). I feel you could have just attacked his points instead and strengthen your points instead of reacting to him. You did good, However, try to focus on the debate at hand instead of trying to support the fact that you are't Reagan.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
white wolf is a jerk, ronald reagan kiked @$$ he is probably more sucsessful then white wolf, tell me how many presidents do you know? Heck Obama is successful, even if he sucks.
Posted by Aaronroy 7 years ago
Trolls in the internet sense.
Posted by WhiteWolf 7 years ago
No actually Scandinavia is the birth place of trolls.. Dude
Posted by Aaronroy 7 years ago
Yes, and I believe America is the birthplace of trolls.
Posted by WhiteWolf 7 years ago
Troll??? This is about AMERICA!
Posted by Aaronroy 7 years ago
Vote CON, Pro has done nothing but troll on a otherwise very serious topic
Posted by blackhawk1331 7 years ago
The decisive argument here is in the 2nd Amendment and 9th or 10th amendment. One gives gun rights, and the other forbids the removal of these rights.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
Oh, this is a good one. If I were an American I would have accepted it immediately.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Charlie Sheen, stay away debate, no 7 gram rocks here.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off somewhat seriously, but soon gave up arguing and reverted to childish nonsense. Con wanted a serious debate and Pro had no excuse for trashing the topic.
Vote Placed by reddj2 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: pro acted very immaturely and con made a better point