The Instigator
subdeo
Con (against)
The Contender
2019browntyler
Pro (for)

Should Guns be Banned?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
2019browntyler has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 426 times Debate No: 101176
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

subdeo

Con

I will argue that guns should be allowed to be owned by the public at large. My opponent will take the position that guns should be banned from being owned by the public. Round one is acceptance only, round two is arguments only, and rounds three and four are for arguments and rebuttals. Good luck, opponent!
2019browntyler

Pro

Hello, I accept this challenge, and claim that guns should be banned from public use. (Use of civilians)
Debate Round No. 1
subdeo

Con

Hello! looking forward to an enlightening discussion for both of us, and thank you for accepting.

The primary reason I believe Guns should be allowed to be owned by the average citizen is because guns in the hands of citizens help to stop crime. According to The Washington Post, "Many mass shootings happen in supposedly "gun-free" zones (such as schools, universities, bars, or private property posted with a no-guns sign), in which gun carrying isn"t allowed in many states." [1] So, the areas that could be called "laboratories" for life without publicly owned guns actually have many shootings themselves. Obviously, something isn't working. Why? Because the criminals who break the laws by shooting people will not think twice to break just one more law by bringing a gun in a "gun free zone". If these types of gun control laws are instituted, the only people with guns will be the criminals: a frightening thought.

However, if the people have guns, they can stop shootings and robberies. In some cases, even better that police who are not everywhere at once. According to The Daily Caller, "Gun carrying, private citizens who used firearms to stop criminal attacks saved at least 283 potential victims in a period between July 2014 and July 2015... In September of 2014, an 11-year-old Oklahoma girl awoke around 4 a.m. to find that a man had broken into her home and stabbed her mother. The girl grabbed a handgun and shot the man twice, saving her mother"s life. The mother said she had just taught the daughter how to use the gun for self defense the week before." [2] These kinds of facts cannot be ignored. I look forward to reading your arguments in favor of the motion

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com...

[2] http://dailycaller.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by subdeo 1 year ago
subdeo
I noticed you forfeited, 2019browntyler. Do you want me to send you the challenge again?
Posted by nura 1 year ago
nura
Coming from a female that has never once touched or seen a gun in her whole entire life of living in a country where purchasing a gun is harder (doesn't matter what purpose you need it for) than what you'd normally expect an overly-populated country with high crime rates allow, I would say from my non-experienced perspective that guns have both positive impacts just as much as the negatives. It all depends on whoever the person is, what their current state of mind is at, what their purpose of using that gun is for, and so many more. I'd say guns should not be banned entirely. From a positive outlook a gun could be either two things, a life-saver or a life-ender (if that's even a word). In specific and very urgent situations where someone's life is at stake at the hands of a possible murderer or a robber carrying a sensitive object with no experience in the defense field, there's a slight chance the victim could get on the so-called bad guys good side by talking their way out of it and bargaining another chance at life, but the larger chance of the victim dying is a risk we are not willing to take. So what should they do? Always stash a place to hide their gun to only pull out in emergency situations, or in this case, when their head is held at gun-point. That's when a gun is even more useful than God himself at that time period. However, if the gun is in the hands of the wrong person, then that might be the start of why people should keep a stash of guns anyway. So to wrap up this comment on what I think about gun-ban is no, guns should not be banned because it is a form of self-defense that could help more than you think, but the purchase of guns should be more strict and cautioned by either having the customer hand out their identity for future incidents, so that the police would be able to track them down if they actually had the balls to use a gun for doing illegal crimes after getting their pictures taken.
Posted by subdeo 1 year ago
subdeo
Any takers?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.