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

Should Guns be banned in the U.S.

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: 11/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 429 times Debate No: 65934
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing to defend mine and others rights to bear arms whoever accepts this challenge will be arguing as to why they think it should be illegal for U.S. citizens other than military and law enforcement to have firearms


I shall assume the first round is for acceptance as their was no argument provided by con in the first round and it was not noted that I should go first.
I accept and shall be arguing that the U.S should institute a gun ban.
Good luck to con, I look forward to an educational and rigorous debate.
Debate Round No. 1


If guns are banned then criminals will have guns but law abiding citizens won't have guns.
Further more if guns are banned then crime will increase because there will be nothing stopping criminals from easily praying on law abiding citizens (FYI the cops usually don't make it in time)
When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment it was so the citizens could defend themselves against all threats foreign and domestic.


Well since Con provided a brief argument, I shall as well be quite terse.
Constiutionality: "
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, if we are to examine the highly regarded amendment, we find that the right to bear arms seems to apply to a well regulated militia. No individual is synonymous with term militia, none the less a well regulated one. Individual safety is also not included, the safety of the state is reffered to.

Criminals: If guns are readily accessible, as they are now, criminals may simply accquire them. If guns are taken away, it axiomatically follows that guns are more difficult to obtain.

Effects Of Gun Bans: In countries that have instiutued gun bans, not only has gun violence gone down, but violent crime overall seems to have gone down, as seen in the UK.
One is actualtually about forty times more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK.
If one is to analyze a list of the worlds safest nations, there is strict gun control in the saftest nations and as the list goes on the gun control is less strict and subsequently safety is lowered. Especially in regards to highly industrialized nations. The US is 101 on the GPI, that is abysmal for an highly developed nation.


Debate Round No. 2


According to an FBI report as gun sales increased, violent crime decreased.
Chicago has the highest crime rate and strictest gun control in the country. Studies show that 40% of prisoners who committed violent crimes got their guns illegally, instead of making the country safe you'd just be making it so that we'd have nothing to defend ourselves from criminals, sure there will be pepper spray, tasers, and knives but a gun has much more range and stopping power, and the cops rarely make it in time to save victims.
If there was a gun ban that doesn't mean gun owner won't be willing to fight for their right to bear arms. 1/4 of Americans own firearms, and Chicago has the highest crime rate (except Detroit) and strictest gun control in the country, imagine Ferguson style riots all throughout the country.
Men with guns are what made this country free, and men with guns will keep it free.
So would you rather have the ability to defend and support yourself, or depend on the government to.


Notice Con has not responded to the constitutionality point, as he can not ratinally interpret the second amendment to where it grants individual gun rights.
He has also did not respond to my point on availability in regards to gun bans.

I would like to call his source into question. "Brieitbart" appears to be a secondary news website with a great conservative bias. The site is analogous to some Alex Jonesesque blog. Also why didn't con just link the study and not some conservative interpretation . Chicago had the MOST homicides of any US city. So even if crime overall decreased, increased gun don't seemed to have decreased homicides.

Also the Armed forces keep this country safe, not citizens with fire arms.
Ferguson riots are an unjustified non-sequitur. In no other country that has instituted a gun ban has riots occured.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FreedomJosh 1 year ago
In school we were told never to depend on wikipedia for reliable info because anyone can edit wiki articles
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
If we were an unarmed society then we would have been fighting Japan on our own soil. The only thing that kept them from an invasion was we are an armed society. Then what would the world have done to defeat Hitler and Mussolinni?

The ONLY ones who want to ban our guns are politicians, criminals ( which there is little difference) and those jealous of our wealth and freedom.And the low-information voter, That's it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 1 year 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I find both arguments weak. Cons only source was against there own argument. When a gun resection was put in place, thus increasing background checks, crime fell.