The Instigator
bluetree653
Con (against)
The Contender
Caden335
Pro (for)

Should guns be banned? (think Las Vegas Massacre)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
bluetree653 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: 10/11/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 407 times Debate No: 104404
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

bluetree653

Con

Just because guns can be harmful doesn't mean that they should be taken away or that their usage should be reduced. If laws were created to ban guns, people would still find ways to maintain weapons, just like the black market does for drugs. Additionally, in 1918 a law passed that banned alcohol, but it didn't work. If you think that guns should be banned, what about cigarettes? We don't ban them because people need them and also we have the second amendment for guns. The shooter of the LA massacre would've found weapons either way even if gun laws were stricter.
Caden335

Pro

Of course guns should be banned.
My opponent is correct in the fact that they will still, despite the ban, be sold, but, no guns = no gun licenses = anyone seen with a gun is breaking the law, and probably could lead the government to that part of the black-market. Most people are against being
Bluetree653 said, "What about cigarettes? We don't ban them because people need them and also we have the second amendment for guns." First off, cigarettes addict people, guns however, don't, so that argument is invalid. Second off, technically, a gun is not a common weapon, and there would be less of a need of an armed militia if no guns are around. No guns = less criminals = less need for guns.
Guns are not the right thing to need. Please, enjoy.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
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
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SurvivoAUS_HenryFan 9 months ago
SurvivoAUS_HenryFan
I am not a proponent of banning guns, that being said, I am also infallible, so I will say this. The United States is by far and away the most prominent manufacturer of firearms in the world, and so this issue is very different from drugs or cigarettes. In the case of those, they are produced almost everywhere, Central America being one of the most prominent geographical locations, and so banning them would open up an unregulated and unmitigated black market, whereas with guns this becomes a far less ubiquitous threat, for the aforementioned reason.
Posted by SurvivoAUS_HenryFan 9 months ago
SurvivoAUS_HenryFan
I am not a proponent of banning guns, that being said, I am also infallible, so I will say this. The United States is by far and away the most prominent manufacturer of firearms in the world, and so this issue is very different from drugs or cigarettes. In the case of those, they are produced almost everywhere, Central America being one of the most prominent geographical locations, and so banning them would open up an unregulated and unmitigated black market, whereas with guns this becomes a far less ubiquitous threat, for the aforementioned reason.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 9 months ago
DakotaKrafick
Are you arguing against an all-out ban on firearms or against any stricter gun control laws? And are you also advocating for the legalization of all Schedule I drugs simply because the black market can provide them? Or for the legalization of large explosive devices simply because it's possible to make one yourself anyway?
This debate has 2 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.