The Instigator
Fatmrhamster
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
whanna4d21
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should Guns be banned in the U.S.?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
whanna4d21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 450 times Debate No: 88156
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Fatmrhamster

Pro

In the U.S. so far, 1.4 million people have died from mass gun attacks. This is more than all the people who have died in all of the U.S. wars, from the fight for independence to the war in Iraq. If we ban guns, it might be true that criminals will think of other ways to attack the population. Yet it would be way harder and the felons will lose a lot of the desire and will to do it. A knife attack might be able to kill two people, yet guns can kill up to forty. The ratio between these two weapons is great. People arm themselves with guns so that they may protect themselves against intruders or robbers and the like. Yet if most of these criminals decide not to commit crimes , the population wouldn't have anything to protect themselves against, or at least a very, very small sliver of the threat posed before the banning of guns. The banning of guns will save hundreds of lives, maybe thousands, or even millions. If we ban guns, our lives will be much safer and we can live in a much safer environment.
whanna4d21

Con

you forget the main reason we have A 2nd amendment, in order to protect all the other ones. In the unlikely event that the government gets out of control locally or federally the people need the means to overthrow it. Pitchforks won't do much against 50 caliber machine guns. Too many people die from gun violence this is true, but we can't take away our only means of defending ourselves from an oppressive government. Might not be today, maybe not 50 years from now; eventually though, there will come a day when the American people need those guns. Look at the patriot act and the NSA spying, this is the groundwork for a bloodbath.
Debate Round No. 1
Fatmrhamster

Pro

Well it isn't very likely for the government to turn on it's people, is it? And even if it did, we wouldn't stand much chance against nukes and the like. But so far, criminals armed with guns is more dangerous. Would you let the mass murders continue just because of a slim percent chance of the government turning on us?
whanna4d21

Con

The best actions for that are stricter gun laws and an expansion in community defense, things like neighborhood watch, maybe hiring unemployed veterans to guard the outside perimeter of schools movie theaters etc. Now how likely is it... Last time American citizens were put in internment camps was the 1940's not that far. Reagan openly lied about the Iran situation. Bush openly lied about Iraq. Only recently they've introduced legislation to put hackers in prison for 10-20 years for finding information the public should know about. They've tried to implement laws regarding internet use so I would say it's slowly going that direction. I'm not a conspiracy nut that thinks Obama wants to murder everyone but government overreach is real and it's happening. As to when I don't know, I can tell you this any criminal nutjob that comes into my house is getting 5.56 rounds put into his chest and his friends, good luck with your knife and baseball bat.
Debate Round No. 2
Fatmrhamster

Pro

First of all, the reason why the 'criminal nutjob' as you put it invades your house is probably because he has a gun and, because of this, he has a lot of confidence. If he doesn't have a gun though, he wouldn't be attacking you so you don't need a gun to protect yourself. Secondly, your solution-- neighborhood watch, etc. could apply just as well to a country without guns, and there would be less danger. Lastly, if the government is working against the general public, do you think a gun will help? Even though the public might have the numbers, the government has the weapons, like nuclear technology. Guns wouldn't help us if the government wants to take over, it would just make them more annoyed and they would probably send in more weapons against us. Also, why would the government want to take over the country? They don't want to establish a monarchy. There is almost no evidence the government wants to take over. Guns should be used only in battle and wars. They shouldn't be used to threaten, kill, and destroy innocent people in America. Children lose their mother, their father, their loved ones. People all over the country is suffering because of guns. We should ban guns and stop the bloodshed, the killing, the horror of it all!
whanna4d21

Con

As I said I don't think it will happen tomorrow but somebody has to keep the government in check. As it was pointed out in the comments section stabbing and other forms of murder would go up. If a gang with police contacts and access to guns got them they could terrorize a small community and that community would do what? My main point is we don't want to be the Palestines in the Palestine/Israel conflict -throwing rocks.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ZachZimmey// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Conduct, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: better spelling/ grammar, conduct

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a restatement of the point allocations.
************************************************************************
Posted by Quadrunner 8 months ago
Quadrunner
Also, death rates don't correlate with guns, whether guns are present or not. Its been logically, and statistically proven many times over. If you see a site claiming otherwise, its cherry picking whether its good or bad. Look at real factors like culture, legal systems, police policy, prosperity, etc.... That's where the change is at. If it appears guns are killing people with any sort of pattern, its because they are related to something that is the actual reason people are dying.
Posted by Quadrunner 8 months ago
Quadrunner
angel
Posted by Quadrunner 8 months ago
Quadrunner
Did anyone find it funny that the one arguing that guns kill people is an angle?
Posted by Fatmrhamster 8 months ago
Fatmrhamster
Guys, please support me on this. Guns really have killed a lot of people. Even though guns won't go away if we ban them, the death rate really would go down. Don't you care for the lives of people? Criminals wouldn't have mas much reason to kill our citizens. First, they can't kill as many people, second, they will find it harder to get over their fear of prison without a gun in their hands. The banning of gun is really essential and can really help our country grow and develop in better ways! Support me please to let us build up a better community around us!
Posted by Shrekoning 8 months ago
Shrekoning
Pro lives in a fairy tale land where once you ban something, it magically poofs out of existence. Reality is that banning things almost never works. Regulation, not bans, is key to saving lives. There is a common middle ground here that nobody wants to agree to because it requires sacrifice on both parts.

Instant background checks, annual psych evaluations, close gun-show loopholes, more mental-health funding, and do not allow those who live with mentally ill to own guns while in that situation.

Notice that there is no assault weapon ban listed above. The fact of the matter is, any gun can kill a large amount of people quickly. A civilian hunting rifle can cause just as much damage as an AR-15. A gun is a gun. This requires gun owners to submit to lots of regulation, and requires liberals to learn to get over themselves and learn to live with "scary looking guns". Of course, all compromise is opposed by the extreme liberal left, who want to ban all guns and think banning things works and is a good idea, or the extreme right who think oppose just about all gun control.
Posted by Quadrunner 8 months ago
Quadrunner
wanna4d21, I sincerely Hope you are well trained to handle your gun under stress, and know where proper backstops in your home are intuitively, and have a plan to ensure your family will be safe in the case that you need to use your gun, and that you don't misjudge your threat. I mean it could be Brutus the warrior or the neighbor down the street returning something. If you use a gun, mistakes aren't an option.
Posted by Quadrunner 8 months ago
Quadrunner
I agree, guns vs crime rate is negligible correlation in most cases at best.
Posted by whanna4d21 8 months ago
whanna4d21
nah bro daily show debunked that good guy with a gun bs.
Posted by Yeeet2016 8 months ago
Yeeet2016
You have to be ignorant of facts to support a gun ban. As gun violence goes down you see more people owning guns. Theres a DIRECT correlation there obviously. Now i would also state that background checks and a ban on guns in certain areas have been PROVEN over and over to not work. Take paris for instance of the muslim couple who killed their co workers. MIND YOU in areas like paris which has crazy gun laws almost bannin it completely. Those muslim couples WITH GUNS killed many people while in a gun free zone. Back to what i was saying is if one or more people GOOD PEOPLE had guns in either of those situations i guarantee there wouldn't be as many killed or even close. A ban on guns would lead to an increase in knife, hand and deadly weapon deaths. Also an increase of black market buying of these weapons. You also would have a revolution with more than 60% revolting and not letting these bans take place.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Shrekoning 8 months ago
Shrekoning
Fatmrhamsterwhanna4d21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to mention how ineffective a gun ban would be. It would turn out just like prohibition and the current drug war, costly to enforce and completely ineffective. (Not to mention increase crime).