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

Resolved: The UK police force should routinely be armed with handguns.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 79852
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




Resolved: The UK's Police force should be issued guns and should carry them routinely.

I haven't done a serious debate since I first got in here so I thought I should do three before I go.


This debate should be impossible to accept for now I'll open it later.
No forfeiture
All arguments must be within the debate, but sources can be put in the comment section if needed.
Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
No trolling
My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to challenge my definitions
The BOP is shared
First round is acceptance and definitions only.
My opponent must argue in R1 but only post constrictive criticism in R4.

Good luck Con.


I accept.


UK - United Kingdom

Police Force - an organized body of police officers responsible for a country, district, or town

Routinely - regular course of procedure

Armed - Equipped

Handguns - any firearm that can be held and fired with one hand accurately

All definitions are from

NOTE: In the rules it states that I have to accept all definitions however there are no definitions provided by my opponent so I have provided them.

Good luck Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm sorry for the delay and short arguments. Real life time constraints. Again sorry.
1997. The UK banned guns that year and murder literally sky rocketed. The only year to ever below the homicide rate since 1997 was 2010. Why?

<strong>Crime rates.
The UK has a higher violent crime than the U.S
U.S actually has a violent crime rate of 466 of 100,00. Meanwhile the U.K, a country who has the unarmed cops,has a 2,304 of 100,000.
Have you ever heard the saying "Never bring a knife to a gun fight"? Well, the UK's police doesn't even have guns so its an even match. Crime vs cops. The cops need an edge.
Now lets see how the data matches against other EU countries. You might be surprised to hear that the UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
Not to mention that some countries in the EU *allow* guns. Now we know that the UK has a problem, right. But to be sure lets check on one more place like south Africa.

Let's see the data. U.K.'s number of crimes is 1,158,957 vs SA's 732,121.


Japan. Let's see what Japan has to say.
Japan has a low crime rate. ( But do they have armed police? Yes. (
Why don't they emulate it?
Extra graphs and sources.
I look forward to the possible police brutality and definitions arguments from con. XD.



Okay, I'll save my rebuttals for the next round and I'll use this round solely for arguments.

Britain and New Zealand have adopted an uncommon style of policing. Their cops typically don't carry guns on the job.

You might assume this would lead to more officer fatalities, but that's not the case.

In Britain, this tradition stretches back to the 19th century. When the Metropolitan Police force was formed, people feared the military and wanted to avoid a police force that was oppressive, according to the BBC.

If police officers don't have guns, then they can't use firearms against citizens. Moreover, police can't have their own guns used against them.

By only allowing some officers to be armed — like a firearms unit in every police force in Britain and cops who patrol security-sensitive places like airports, for example — the logic goes, there's less of a risk of gun violence overall.

A New Zealand police commissioner wrote in an editorial in 2009:

I have no doubt that carrying handguns would compromise officers' ability to do their regular work, because when you carry a weapon, your primary concern is to protect that weapon. If this was balanced by a clearly demonstrable increase in personal protection, it would be a price to consider paying. But the protection offered by a firearm — particularly a pistol — is more illusory than real.

This has actually worked out quite well. The UK and New Zealand fare rather well compared to other countries when it comes to violent crime. They have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world:

World homicide rates

Gun deaths are lower in Europe and Oceania overall, too:

Homicide mechanism chart

Police shootings are far less prevalent in Britain than they are in the US. In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting in August, The Economist noted that British citizens are about "100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans."

Protests erupted in Ferguson, Missouri after a white police officer shot and killed Brown, an unarmed black teenager, during a routine patrol, leading to a national conversation about police brutality and use of force.

What helps Britain and New Zealand pull off unarmed policing is that gun ownership rates in these countries are much lower than in the US, which means that fewer criminals are armed with guns.

And police in Britain do have access to tasers to subdue suspects, which is a much safer alternative to guns.


The first reason handguns should be outlawed for ordinary citizens is because their main purpose is simply to kill other human beings. Why would our country allow us to have the right to own an object that is deadly? Our government seems to want to protect us. For example, seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws were created to protect our lives. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces pollution laws to keep us safe and healthy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects food and tests drugs to make sure American citizens are not harmed by nasty food and dangerous drugs. Yet, our government allows just about anybody to own and walk around with guns. It does not appear our government really cares about our safety. If it did, handguns would be outlawed for the general public, because their only purpose is to kill people.

Second, we should ban the possession of handguns, because the homicide and robbery rate in the U.S. is much greater than in Canada where there are stricter handgun laws. From 1987 to 1996, 52% of all homicides in the U.S. involved handguns while only 14% of all homicides in Canada involved handguns. Also, between 1987 and 1996, firearm homicide rates increased by 2% in the United States but decreased by 7% in Canada. Furthermore, handgun homicide rates in the U.S. are 15.3 times higher than in Canada. Finally, firearm robbery rates in the U.S. are 3.5 times higher than in Canada. Obviously, homicide and robbery rates involving handguns are higher in the U.S. where handgun laws are not as strict as in Canada. Our high crime rate is another reason handguns should be banned.

The third and maybe biggest reason that citizens should not possess handguns is because handguns can easily get into the hands of little children. For example, about one and a half years ago, a six year old boy in the Beecher School District took a loaded handgun to school and shot and killed a six year old female classmate. This young boy may not have understood the concept of death. However, because he had easy access to a handgun, he was able to hurt someone he didn't like. This has happened all over the country, like at Columbine High School and many other places. It is sad that this happens, but we shouldn't be shocked. After all, the law allows us to own guns, guns made simply to kill.

"More guns, more mass shootings, coincidence?"

I tried to keep my arguments short in order to keep this a fair debate. Rebuttals should be posted in the final round and hopefully my opponent has time now to make this a fair debate.


Debate Round No. 2


ClashnBoom forfeited this round.


My opponent has broken their own rules. I extend all of my arguments and I urge voters to vote con!
Debate Round No. 3


ClashnBoom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
The police shooting Brown in Ferguson doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed... If black people riot because a robber attacking a cop is shot, that's on them. The police owe no reliability there.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Okay, that's good.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
I have time don't worry. No skill but with time? I'm good.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
Cool. But I can't.

Also sorry for the shortness. Had an exam to study for.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
I can still read your argument don't worry.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
WTF! What's wrong with bold text?? How come I can still see the strong strong?
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
I just copied the rules here from my other debate and added the first round is acceptance without knowing I had a rule against that. Lol. If you did post arguments you'd have to skip R4.

Anyway. I look forward to a good debate.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Yeah, I sort of guessed that. It's lucky I didn't post my arguments.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
Ops. I'm an idiot. That last "rule" was meant to be erased. Sorry. Lol.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
Noooooooooo DONT GO BABY
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture