The Instigator
Yeeet2016
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
DBhundia
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should guns be banned?

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...
Yeeet2016
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 373 times Debate No: 88214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Yeeet2016

Pro

Im AGAINST the ban on guns. First round we will give our openin statement. Second proof and statistics. Third rebuttals. First i would like to say im totally for guns. There is a clear distinction between someone mentally ill who will kill someone and a normal person using the weapon as self defense. Back in the 1970s the government tried a ban on liquor thinking it would prevent liquor related deaths. Unfortunately it increased liquor related deaths causing an epidemic. Imagine if we banned guns? There would be a civil war with millions of Americans fighting against the government. For the sake of the argument if you somehow did ban guns then what? You would see a dramatic increase in knife related deaths as well as more violence like crim, robbery etc. Because how can you defend yourself? The ban on guns would thus lead to more violence. The stance that banning the tool and not fixing the problem is unheard of. We need to end private prisons and stop throwing people in jail for doing drugs. They should be helped in rehab instead. Why do I say this? Most school shootings, or shootings in general start with a mentally challenged, or mentally altered individual. We need to stop the source of the problem period.
DBhundia

Con

My names David and i currently live in England, so i'm for the ban on guns. Guns are killing machines, weapons used with the sole intention of taking another life. Here in England, there is obviously a complete ban on guns, so I can speak from the perspective of a real example of how a gun ban is very effective and totally decreases the number of deaths by murder. Firstly, I'd like to refer to the US constitution. The constitution says that the American people have a right to "bear arms" in case the government decides to go "rogue" and take total control of the country. I would just like to say from the outside how absurd and unrealistic that sounds. Do you really think that Barack Obama (or Clinton or Trump), is going to decide out of the blue to start attacking his own people. America is not Syria, there is a stable democratic system in place, and if it were to be threatened, i am sure the rest of the world would react appropriately. Secondly, you make a point about shootings starting "with a mentally challenged, or mentally altered individual." I, like most people, interpret "mentally challenged" as someone who perhaps has been radiaclised to commit an act of terror. If we ban guns, the availability of these weapons of terror will be far less available, therefore decreasing the chance of a "radicalised" individual commiting such an atrocity. By not banning guns, you are essentially making it very easy for anybody to buy 100's of rounds of ammunition accompanied by an assault rifle and "voila", you have an easy way of commiting an act of terror. Is this what you want? More "pariseque" attacks on your own people but this time on your own soil? Perhaps you say background checks can be done to ensure guns don't fall into the wrong hands, but how do you know if someone is radicalised? Finally, I would like to say that please dont use the fact that I'm British against me, I lived in Houston for 8 years, so don't play that card.
Debate Round No. 1
Yeeet2016

Pro

Hey! I first off would like to say that "fact" you posted about murder rates in England is completely wrong. Before there was a ban on guns in England you had a murder rate of around 1%. Thats not terrible but right after a man shot up i believe a school they decided to ban buns. Guess what? The percentage for murder in England has driven from 1% to almost 3% (2.7% to be exact). Now think about this logically if we see a CLEAR and OBVIOUS situation in which a ban on guns not only didn't work but worsened the problem then what is the problem? Is it knives? LETS BAN KNIVES! No! You treat the people who have the mentally health issue or are unstable in these situations. Also regarding deaths what about alcohol? It's one of the leading causes of desth in America should we ban Alcohol? No! But guess what? In the 1970s when they banned alcohol hoping for less liquor related deaths the government was astonished. Liquor related deaths increased DRAMATICALLY. The same would happen with guns. Many people would ban together and start a revolution against the government because they believe in the 2nd amendment very strongly. The ban on guns would cause a chain reaction in which people all over America would search the black market for weapons to use. Not only that but once again there would be a massive amount more of crimes, rapes etc. Theres no logical reason to justify the ban. I understand it seems as if guns are the problem but their not. The proble is we don't treat mental health cases like some other countries do. We instead treat them as second class citizens and toss them in jail. We need to reform our prisons, treat the mentally ill and strengthen our 2nd amendment.
DBhundia

Con

You talk of treating the "mentally ill people" to ensure that they don't commit such horrific crimes, but I invite you to give me a realistic strategy for identifying a mentally person as a threat to the country. Furthermore, I'm pretty certain that someone who has become "radicalised" and intends to commit an atrocious act with a gun is smart enough not to waltz into a hospital and say that he has become radicalised and needs help. He/she will also be smart enough to go to a gun shop where correct checks aren't taking place. I'd like to take you back to the 2012 Aurora shootings, where a masked man dressed as the "joker" walked into a cinema and opened fire on the crowd, killing 12 people and wounding 70 others. These survivors will be scarred for life, perhaps physically, but more likely mentally. Is this what you want? A man being able to walk into a store and purchase an AR 15 assault rifle, a Remington 12 gauge 850 shotgun and two 40 calibrate glock hand guns, along with 6000 rounds of ammunition. All of that bought legally in the name of self defence? If guns had been banned, would that massacre of happened? The answer is no. And all of the people, around 150, wouldn't have to live the rest of their lives with those deep irreparable mental scars. Is this really what you want? More people dying because of a stupid and unnecessary law. Who needs 6000 rounds of ammunition and 3 different guns? By going against gun control laws, you are being hurtful towards everyone who has died or has to bear the scars and wounds of a gun attack. In Britain, of course knives are used more. But would you rather someone wandered into a school with a knife or 6000 rounds of ammunition and 4 guns? I know which one I'd choose if I were sitting in class and just that occurred, and as a fellow high school student I am dissapointed in you, as you're saying you'd rather risk watching all of your friends be killed so that you can prevent some government totalitarian dictatorship. Please, be smart and protect your own friends from that possibility.
Debate Round No. 2
Yeeet2016

Pro

Lets talk about Aoura. That area was a no gun area! Imagine if one of those people had a gun? They could defend themselves. Also please answer this next question i have PLEASE. If you ban guns what would cops use? A tazer? If so i could go out and buy a tazer right now. I could literally run for as long as i could sit in a corner with 20 tazers and keep shooting at them with a riot sheild or something. I mean really doesn't that sound dumb? Please answer that question PLEASE. Also if you support only cops having guns couldn't they technically come together and take over entire towns using LITERALLY tazers knives etc? I mean i understand it sounds illogical but isn't that possible? Also on your point of the radicalized people, we could stop the flow of syrian refugees coming into this country for one. We could also have a strengthened 2nd amendment in which many people who own guns can protect themselves and their family's at all times. This notion that a simple ban on guns can fix anything is absurd. LASTLY ANSWER THOSE ABOVE QUESTIONS PLUS YOU HAVEN'T REFUTED ANY INFORMATION I HAVE POSTED.*
DBhundia

Con

Your claim that i haven't refuted ANY of your points is absurd. Your obviously not reading what I've said properly. So, I'll make things extra clear for you this time. Firstly, you should be aware that here in Britain, although there is a gun ban, certain police (cops) are allowed to carry around guns, as some have special training. They are mainly seen at major social events such as the olympics in 2012 or big soccer matches. This is so that they can quickly neutralise an imminent danger (gun bearer) to the public if they need to. By banning guns, I mean banning the SALE of guns to the general public, not the use of guns by law enforcement. And you once again refer to the 2nd ammendement like any typical gun supporter by saying once again that the police could decide to take over the country. And yes I agree it is a possibility. But so was it possible that Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon, and so was it possible that Bush did 9/11. There are an infinite possibilities to an infinite number of things, so it is impossible to cover every single one with a different law. It's just insane and an old American civil war outdated way of thinking that is just being taken advantage of. By saying that you should stop the flow of Syrian refugees to stop terror, you are effectively saying that Syrian refugees are anti American lunatics. In fact, Syrian refugees are actually regular people like you and I who have ahead a totalitarian regime imposed upon by a brutal dictator called Assad. This is a deliberate stereotype used by the likes of Donald trump to scare people into thinking that foreigners are all a threat. Once again, this is an outdated American way of thinking. Finally, you mentioned earlier that just "banning the tool" is absurd. However, how can you put the nail in the wall without a hammer?
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by mwilliams1014 8 months ago
mwilliams1014
Hey David, why don't we just ban hammers, clubs, baseball bats, and cars. Why don't we just tear up our constitution. The gun didn't kill these people, the person did. Guns don't shoot without a finger to pull the trigger. Kind of like how clubs and hammers don't kill people when you don't beat people with them. You want to ban all guns?!?! What a joke...
Posted by smccardell21 8 months ago
smccardell21
Banning guns would just be stupid. Plain and simple. Drugs are illegal in the US, but that doesn't stop someone from getting them. Same thing with guns. If someone wants a gun badly enough, they will find a way to get one. And if they intend to use it for the wrong reasons, they will have a massive advantage over regular citizens who don't use illegal methods to obtain guns. Criminals have no issue with breaking the law now, so why would a gun ban change that. A good citizen does fear the repercussions for breaking the law, and a vast majority of citizens would therefore not purchase a gun illegally. There have been many instances, not shown by the liberal mainstream media, of gun-owning citizens preventing crimes just by coming at the criminal with their gun. I completely support stricter background checks, although as I stated earlier a criminal has no problem with obtaining a gun illegally. The issue is not guns themselves, but the people using them. They should be available to citizens who would use them for the right reasons.
Posted by Shrekoning 8 months ago
Shrekoning
It depends on the state. In some States its a total joke, and in others its entirely reasonable. The problem is that gun control advocates often are COMPLETELY uneducated about guns so they make stupid reforms that don't actually help anyone and just piss off gun owners. If you are going to regulate something, you should learn about it so you don't make stupid laws that don't work. Like the New York assault weapon ban. First of all, AR stands for Armalite, the company that originally made the AR-15, it does not stand for Assault Rifle. Secondly, it would be more accurate to consider Assault weapons to be capable of automatic fire, the AR-15 is simply a civilian model of a US military rifle. If you don't know anything about guns, you would simply think it does more damage because it has a scary black paintjob and the opportunity for attachments. There are civilian semi-auto rifles that don't look as scary because they have a wooden civilian look to them, but they use the same round and have the same power and capability to kill. Because the definition of Assault Rifle is often based on cosmetics, gun makers can often just change the design to avoid it being classified as an Assault Rifle. Look up New York Compliant AR-15. Now compare it to a regular AR-15. All they did was change the magazine system, pistol grip, and few other things. "Assault Rifles" are typically not a common tool of crime or shootings. 20 sensationalist media covered stories out of thousands of incidents of gun crime does not justify a ban. Logical and sensible regulation is the key here, not cosmetic and feature bans. Plus, outright banning the AR-15 never works, due to design changes or just flat out illegal trading of the rifle.
Posted by ascandinadian 8 months ago
ascandinadian
Perhaps gun shouldn't be banned altogether, BUT there should be a much more vigorous process for someone to purchase a firearm, America's gun restriction laws are a total joke.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Shrekoning 8 months ago
Shrekoning
Yeeet2016DBhundiaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lives in Britian where they have a gun fear culture instead of a gun culture, therefore his close minded "It looks scary and does scary things, BAN IT!" makes sense. In the UK, you can guns because only a few people have them. In America, you would start a civil war and cause a huge black market. (There is already a big black market for guns, criminals are able to get guns so easily, just think how much worse it would be if they were banned.) He seems to think that a gun ban magically stops all gun crimes. In the UK, it would limit guns to only the professional criminals with determination, connections, and funds. In America, it would have little effect on current criminals. America does need gun control, but it needs common sense compromise too. As a gun owner, I would have no issue with being annually psych evaluated amongst other things. Regulate better, don't throw up your hands and say, "Welp, guess we gotta ban it".