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

Resolved: The US should pass a law prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,226 times Debate No: 10773
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Personal ownership: The independent ownership of a firearm. This includes hunting and personal defense. This excludes firearms owned by police officers and those of related professions. These guns, however, shall only be on the officer's person when on duty.

Firearms: a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun

If such a law were passed, the following changes would be made in society:
-Guns for hunting shall be rented at the designated hunting area for use during recreational hunting.
-Temporary Government depots will be stationed in communities where citizens are expected to turn in their personally owned firearms.
-After the return period, anyone apprehended with a personally owned firearm will be arrested and charged according to the will of the state.


Contention: Prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms will decrease child mortality rates.

According the University of Michigan, an average of nine children are killed per day by firearms. "This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries."
Taking away the firearms in homes owned by their parents or even themselves, they will not have access to the weapon in order to use it to kill someone or themselves. Also, they will not be tempted to mess around with the firearm and accidentally shoot someone or themselves if the firearm is not accessible.
The negative may argue that they are other weapons available in homes, but when firearms are used these situations are 90% lethal. If the child was to use a knife or a blunt object, the result will be injury but possibly not as fatal as quickly.


I thank my opponent for posting this debate and I will try to debate this issue with an open mind.

In the Constitution of the United States, the second amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, your entire plan is entirely unconstitutional and will be declared so in the Supreme Court once this plan is passed. The impact is the impeachment of your administration.

According to recent CNN polls, public opinion of strict gun control laws is only supported by 39% of the American population. Therefore, public support for this policy is limited and passage of this law will increase tensions in this country. The impact is thousands of riots around the country which will lead to civil war over a policy that no one wanted.

This will not link to the counterplan because our c/p is not gun control, only stricter regulations (see below).

Alternate cause- When we ban all firearms for all Americans, we are punishing those honest tax-paying citizens who do not murder their neighbors. Instead, as the article below states, the cause of the high homicide rates in the U.S. is due to the large number of assault military-grade-like weapons that plague the inner city streets of our nation which are being handled by dangerous criminals and former felons. SEE OUR COUNTERPLAN which will solve both of these issue without causing the disad impacts and alienating the rest of the American people.

How will you be able to take away all of America's guns? And even when you do, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR IT?! This is extremely horrifying and you should be impeached. I also question how you will be able to execute this.. which questions if you'll be able to solve your advantage at all!

The United States Federal Government shall 1) Ban the use/sale of assault weapons in the United States; 2) Implement mandatory background checks and restrictions to limit the sale to those persons on a "gun-watch list"; 3) Funding for anti-firearm-smuggling programs for the U.S. Border Control will be increased to limit illegal arms flow into the U.S.; 4) Create an independent federal commission under the U.S. Department of Justice to regulate all federal guidelines, of whom the members shall be appointed by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs; 5) All guidelines, including definitions of "assault weapons", will be revised every 5 years.

C/P S: This counterplan will solve your Child Mortality advantage while ALSO being constitutional and not causing our disadvantages.
Debate Round No. 1


MaddieJBudnyRKHS forfeited this round.


go ahead ;)
Debate Round No. 2


Constitutionality DA- The second amendment was needed when the constitution was written because everyday citizens could be called upon as a militia at any given moment. But times have changed and it is not necessary to have this right anymore. Also, the impact has very low probability. Only two presidents have been impeached in our history and they were not the only administrations that passed theoretically unconstitutional laws.

Public Support DA- There have been unfavorable laws that caused tension in the past that did not cause riots. If the government never passed laws that the entire population did not support, we would be in chaos. Therefore this DA has a very low probability threshold.

Child Mortality- "Honest tax paying citizens that do not murder their neighbors" should not need to have guns in their homes. Therefore your claim that we are punishing them is unwarranted.

Solvency- The Affirmative case did not say jail. This is an overdrawn speculation by the negative and should not be considered in the debate.
The case specifically said that individual states will be in charge of how much or how little punishment those found with guns will be subject to.

Also, since most gun owners should have a license for their firearms, an order will be sent to licensed owners requiring them to report to the drop off site and turn in their firearms. Those who do not comply will be subject to the judgment of their individual state.

CP: The USFG tried an assault weapons band in 1994. Contrary to what it was supposed to do, manufacturing of certain assault weapons actually increased by 114%.

Therefore the CP has no solvency.


The Second Amendment is a critical part of the Bill of Rights. Its impact is HUGE, with over 70 million Americans owning a gun. Obviously, the Constitution gives them a right to own such a weapon. Everyday citizens may not have to fight against the British in a militia, but they do have to protect their homes and their families from the crime rates that plague our nation's cities (including the one where we both live, my opponent!).

Alternative impact- Once the law is passed, your law will be challenged by the U.S Supreme Court, after it ruled in 2008 in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. Once it is assessed, the law will be declared unconstitutional.

Maybe my opponent is unaware of the historical facts of our country. There are numerous examples of when unpopular policies created riots and revolts that turned violent:

- In the Revolutionary era (1765-1786), hundreds of protests and violent riots plagued the 13 colonies to protest unjust taxes and government intervention in personal liberties.
- Between 1890-1968, racial riots broke out in New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, and other large cities because of the segregationist policies in the South and racial tensions.
- Among many others listed here:

Honest tax paying citizens need firearms to keep their homes and families safe (as I mentioned above) from criminal elements and the increase of violent crime rates in the United States.

I concluded that the violators of your law being "apprehended" and "charged" meant they would possibly be thrown in jail. Even so, these punishments are wrong. Because states will be able to set their own punishment levels, this will lead to chaos because why should "violators" in Texas be charged with a $20 fine when people in Connecticut might be put on probation with a $50,000 bail? This isn't fair and isn't justice at all.

Actually we do have Solvency. Under President Clinton's presidency and after the Assault Weapons ban, the Clinton presidency had the LOWEST CRIME RATES IN A GENERATION.

-Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, overall gun crime has declined 40 percent, and firearms related homicides committed by juveniles have dropped by nearly 50 percent. There were 227,000 fewer gun crimes in 1999 than 1992, and 1,246 fewer children were killed by guns than in 1992.

-Background checks performed under the Brady Law have prevented more than 611,000 felons, fugitives and domestic abusers from buying a gun.

We actually have more Solvency than your plan because the counterplan has been implemented already and has (and will continue to solve, with the added procedures outlined in the CP text) solved these problems and more within historical context.

Therefore, you must perfer the CP.

- Banned the manufacture, sale and importation of 19 of the deadliest assault weapons.
Debate Round No. 3


MaddieJBudnyRKHS forfeited this round.


zachrkhs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


MaddieJBudnyRKHS forfeited this round.


I believe my arguments still stand, so please vote against this resolution! Thank you!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF