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

Should guns be banned in America?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 8/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,259 times Debate No: 60785
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Guns should definitely be banned. As logic tells, without a purpose of attacking someone, why would it be necessary to own a gun if no one else has it. However, as we all know, the government cannot just simply pass a law to ban guns because of the lobbying of gun companies. Each years the gun companies lobby millions of dollars to political figures such as the president and senators. Therefore, it prevents them from simply banning guns. So, with this obstacle in the way, it is clear that gun banning is technically impossible. However, another approach to getting rid of guns is by discouraging the buyers. There are infinite ways of doing so, but some of the most reasonable ways can be: increasing the cost of guns, making the steps to buy guns more complicated and etc.


I do not think that there should be any gun control in America. Because what we all know is that even if gun control laws passed in America, there will STILL be criminals carrying guns in the streets. Besides, the 2nd Amendment states that people should have the right to bare arms (law-abiding citizens) and it's not just to defend themselves from home invaders, but also in case they need to stand up to a government that is corrupt and unjust. Besides, even if they did ban guns, there will still be criminals out in the streets with guns either mugging or killing innocent people. Besides, most of the time, the police won't make it either because they're corrupt, or they're just too to help people that need them. Besides, that 2nd Amendment was put in there for a reason by our forefathers. If another country invades in a time where gun control has passed, the blood of the people will be on the hands of those who supported gun control. No matter how much you try to ban guns, there WILL ALWAYS be violence. Ok, gun control passes, the next thing is knife control. After knife control, bat control. And after bat control, you'd better let law-abiding gun owners defend themselves from those who rob them or invade our country. Or should a government be extremely corrupt.
Debate Round No. 1


That is not true. Banning guns in America is definitely going to decrease the crime rate. Banning knifes? That is nonsense. And logical speaking, crimes with guns are much more threatening than crimes with knifes. This is because, if the person who is being attacked have done some kind of martial arts, they could possibly defend themselves against crimes with knifes. However, there is no way that anyone can defend themselves against guns. Yes, i agree that the 2nd amendment allows ownership of weapons for citizen, but i think it's necessary to put a stop to citizens killing other citizens with bullets.


Most of the time when shootings like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabrielle Giffords, The Dark Knight Rises Premiere, Sandy Hook Elementary and the Navy Yard happen, they always have to blame guns and video games. Guns are not the real issue of these random acts of violence. The real problem was that these kids were either bullied or mentally ill, or maybe they weren't raised properly. Besides, where did criminals get their guns? They for damned sure didn't get it in gun stores, most likely they got it from friends and other family members who wanted to show it to them. Besides, a gun doesn't kill people unless someone is holding it and is about to pull the trigger. If a gun owner has a gun at home, he/she has to make sure that their kids don't see it and do something so fouled up to a bully.
Debate Round No. 2


I do understand, that the main cause of shootings, and other criminal events are caused by the violent minds that some people have. But, the problem is, those violent minds are accelerated and encouraged by weapons that could kill in seconds. And those weapons are guns. Of course, the best solution to stop the criminal events is to get rid of the violence. However, that is virtually impossible. If they banned guns, they fatality rate of the crimes will vastly decrease. If guns are banned, the main weapon of criminals would be knifes. Therefore, it would also increase the rate of survival for the citizens being attacked. Banning guns are the best the american government can do to decrease fatality rate of crimes


States with strict gun laws such as New Jersey and Detroit have the HIGHEST crime rates than "shall issue" states. Some of the most dangerous places in America are caused by gun control advocates like Feinstein, Christie and so on. Like the pointless and pompous fraud of this "War on Drugs", gun control laws are unconstitutional. But no, to liberals and Obama's followers, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and the 2nd Amendment needs to be removed. Besides, celebrities have their armed security guards, and their PSA of demanding a plan just demonstrates how greatly hypocritical they are. This government is without a doubt the WORST to ever grace this country. Plus, the banning of guns with this unconstitutional gun control would be totally unjust for gun owners who use their guns for sport and probably in the future, survival.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RobDoar 3 years ago
Pro says: "Banning guns are the best the american government can do to decrease fatality rate of crimes"

How exactly are you going to get gang members, who are responsible for the vast majority of gun murders, to comply with the ban?

Please be specific.
Posted by RobDoar 3 years ago
It's a fallacy that one can buy a "military grade" weapon by walking into a store.

Select fire firearms or machine guns takes months of ATF paperwork and background checks.

Criminals, mostly gang members, who are responsible for nearly 90% of gun murders, do not just go into shops and buy guns. They couldn't pass the background checks. Focusing on the tool, and not the real problem will never yield any results.
Posted by Leprechaun99 3 years ago
As a European I find it shocking that you can walk into a sports shop and buy a military grade fire-arm. I have witnessed an associate of mine obtain a gun license and the process was so quick and easy it was truly scary. The US needs real reform in gun control and needs to think about disarming its civilian population. Where I come from police don't carry guns- it is very difficult to obtain a gun and there are very few innocent civilian a getting shot, despite rampant mental health problems such as alcoholism and depression.... There have never been any indiscriminate public gun rampages that I know of, since the British troops left in the 1920s...
Posted by hsif 3 years ago
Pro must understand the complexity of the issue at hand rather than issue a "logical, think once" response like so many gun legislators have done in the past. (Assault Weapons Ban, anyone?)
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Guns are not the issues.

Stupidity and neglecting that stupidity is a very serious issue.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Both made a good case, however I feel that Con ultimately made the most sense. As someone who lives in a country in which guns are completely banned, I can attest to the fact that it does nothing to reduce violence and / or murder. In fact, it only serves to make murderers more creative and violent than if they had guns. I read this debate with an open mind, originally not on one side or the other but I am swayed more towards cons case here. Possible in an ideal world pro's case would win but that is not the world we live in.