The Instigator
enternamehere
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
logic123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should guns be banned in the US?

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 5 votes the winner is...
enternamehere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 676 times Debate No: 68112
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

enternamehere

Con

Guns should not be banned.
logic123

Pro

Guns are against God's will.
Debate Round No. 1
enternamehere

Con

Guns should not be banned.

Reasons why guns should not be banned in the US:

1. Guns do not kill people; people kill people.
A gun is a weapon - the person behind the weapon is knowingly committing a crime. Violence occurs everywhere. If there weren't any guns, people would use other forms of weapons to commit violent crimes ie knives etc.

2. Guns will still exist in America even if they are banned.
Illegal purchases of guns would still occur and criminals would still get their hands on them. Meanwhile, law abiding citizens would be left defenseless.

3. Used to defend citizens from government tyranny.
This might be a stretch, but countries have become tyrannical before. It is irresponsible not to consider a government becoming tyrannical, it has happened numerous times in Europe. It might not happen today or tomorrow, but it might in the many years to come.

4. Crime rate would increase without guns.
If criminals illegally purchase or obtain guns, they could rob houses and commit other sorts of crimes much more easily. This would happen because people would have less resistance to these crimes.

5. There could be improvements in gun control.
The main objective is to keep guns out of the hands of bad people; and into the hands of good people. Better background checks could be implemented to limit the chances of 'bad people' legally obtaining firearms.
logic123

Pro

logic123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
logic123

Pro

logic123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by enternamehere 2 years ago
enternamehere
I believe gun restriction would count as a con, for it shows that the homicide rates would decrease without an all out gun ban.

However, if you'd still like to debate for the Pro side of "should guns be banned in the US", I am happy to argue.

Your case would be how an all out gun bam would be better.

I hope that answers your question, Network :)
Posted by Network 2 years ago
Network
Does gun restriction count as Pro in this debate?

Because if it did, I'd be interested in debating with you.
Posted by enternamehere 2 years ago
enternamehere
Vote con, people! Pro has forfeited.
Posted by enternamehere 2 years ago
enternamehere
Yeah, I will instigate again.
Posted by Asburnu 2 years ago
Asburnu
Sorry you were duped. logic123 was just mocking the whole debate "thing" apparently. I was looking forward to the evidence for his assertion. I encourage you to instigate again. Maybe a bigger fish will bite.
Posted by Gemeni25 2 years ago
Gemeni25
Please don't let this guy be just another 'god's will' commenter...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Hylian_3000 2 years ago
Hylian_3000
enternameherelogic123Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
enternameherelogic123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct Con, Pro forfeited. Arguments Con, went unrefuted due to forfeit.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
enternameherelogic123Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: pro said one thing the entire debate and it was even worse than his 2 forfeits in the rest of the debate XD
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
enternameherelogic123Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: None of Con's reasons were rebutted. Arguments go to Con. Conduct goes to Con for Pro's round forfeits.
Vote Placed by black_squirrel 2 years ago
black_squirrel
enternameherelogic123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: pro forfeited