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

Should guns be illegal to own for anyone that is not police or military in the US

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,493 times Debate No: 28760
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (2)




Based off the comments in my other debate with the opponent, here is the debate we have come to.

I will be arguing that guns should not be made illegal to civilians.

I will offer the first round of debate to my opponent and allow him to state his case.

There will be no structure to the content of the rounds, both debaters may refute, argue, and present in any round.

The debate to is convince if it should be illegal for civilians to own guns.


Despite the stubbornness of my opponent, I do appreciate his invitation to debate this topic. Thanks.

Proving that firearms should not be available to the general public will be the topic. I wish my opponent had posted why he think people should carry weapons so that I could start my counter argument.

Does my opponent think that people should carry arms because of the second amendment, or because of a safety issue, or because of having a hobby, or because it is cool, or because we might get invaded by Mexico and our army is not enough for our defense? Who knows? Perhaps we will find out in the next round.

Here is my point: Do you rather vacation in Somalia where almost everyone carry a rifle or in Japan where weapons are not available to the general public and only a few homicides occur in a year? Does a country become safer with an armed or a disarmed population? That is the big picture. Actually, we do not see many American tourists heading to Somalia.

The parody that there should be no problem as long as we only allow the so called "law abiding citizens" to carry guns
is a fallacy. First, anyone, even ex-convicts, can buy a rifle in gun shows. Second, "law abiding citizens" may become deranged as well and commit crimes. There is always a first time. Third, "law abiding citizens" misplace and lose their guns, making them accessible to the bad guys. Guns get stolen, too. Lastly, according to the National Gun Victims, the reason most guns end up in the hands of criminals is that corrupted gun dealers sell them to anybody.

I would like my opponent to define what is a "law abiding citizen" for the purpose of carrying guns and what allegations, charges, and misdemeanors allow a person to retain such label. That way, when the NRA try to sells us its
propaganda, we will know what kind of person they are referring to as they mention the "law abiding citizen" myth. Sometimes it seems they are talking about "angels" even though a great number of people charged with domestic violence fall under that category.

Despite the fact I oppose the proliferation of weapons among civilians, I do not blame anyone for carrying a gun. I perfectly understand that due to the huge number of guns being around everyone wants a gun for his or her protection. But at one point this proliferation has to stop because if there were 5 millions of illegal guns five years ago, and ten millions now, in the next five years there will be 15 millions. That proves that we are failing our future generations the same way past generations failed this generation and that is why so many children and innocent people are getting killed in schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, and many other places. According to, approximately 341,000 guns are stolen yearly in the U.S. It also reports that every hour four people get killed in the U.S. due to gun violence, and that nearly 23.775 firearms are reported stolen every year. The greater the number of guns in our society, the greater fear infringing our freedom.

I would like to remind my opponent that the Constitution is a living document; hence, every generation has the right to adopt or modify any law to suit the needs of its times. Besides that, the second amendment refers to a well-organized militia, not individual citizens carrying weapons. Furthermore, it talks about "the right of the people" in plural, not in singular. For that purpose we do have the National Guard.

My resolution: The implementation of a program having the government buy every single weapon from individuals without a need to possess a firearm. A similar program worked well in Australia.

Debate Round No. 1


I'm glad that my opponent decided to accept this debate and I hope that all who read it will leave at least more informed about the issues surrounding the hotly contested gun-rights debate in the US. I hope that both myself and my opponent are able to maintain a level of respectful contention and refrain from personal attacks, something both of us failed to do in our comment war the past few days. So I will do my best to keep this a respectful debate and ask only the same of my opponent. In addition, I think we are both quite stubborn and so the same sentiments go out to him as well.

Counter to my opponent's topic, mine goal will be to show there is benefit from maintaining the current laws that allow for civilians to own firearms. While gun control and levels of control will come into this debate, the purpose is should guns be allowed at all and would we benefit from eliminating the legal ownership of guns by civilians.
As my opponent asked for, here are the answers to his questions:
Second amendment - Yes
Safety - Yes
Hobby (including but not limited to, hunting, sport/target shooting, collecting, etc) - Yes
The rest are irrelevant.

Guns are out there. It's an irrefutable fact that there are guns in the world. It is also a fact that guns have the ability to kill and are often designed for such a purpose. However, it is not a fact that by eliminating the ability for civilians to own guns you are making that population any safer.

I will begin with a few simple refutations of my opponent's arguments and then I will add to my own.

1. The vacationing analogy my opponent offers is pointless. I ask you this, would you rather go for a vacation with your family to a third world country ripe with poverty, no clean living accommodations and corrupt governments OR go to Disney land? People don't vacation in Somalia not because of the number of guns but because of the whole country. In addition, the reason for the amount of guns in Somalia is due to illegal gun trade, acquiring them from the government and ethnic groups in war with each other, and other factors. To top this rebuttal off, the US is the second highest tourist destination in the world, second only to France. And the number of gun owners in the US is 7-8 times that of the entire population of Somalia, and the number of guns in the US is equal to over 30 times that of Somali population. So, clearly it is not the number of guns, it is the country as a whole and lack of any touristy attractions. In addition, Mexico which is a dangerous place as a recent times is #10 on the list, the UK which is high up on gun control is #7. So arguing tourism poses no relevance.

2. Yes, there may be issues with criminals buying guns at gun shows. However, this does not emphasize the point that civilians should not own them. That is a question of increasing levels of control as to who buys them, not eliminating them as a whole. Criminals are not allowed to own guns, a convicted felon may not possess a firearm, as such, for them to purchase them is illegal. And so, for my opponent to argue this point is arguing for increased measures to stop illegal firearm purchases not eliminating guns from law abiding citizens.

3. I'd ask my opponent to show me statistics regarding gun owners simply "losing" their guns. I know and have known many gun owners, and never once have I known one or known one to tell a story (which us gun owners like to do, like any normal people socializing) about someone "losing" a gun. So until I see statistics on this I see it as a mute point.

4. Corrupted gun dealers selling guns to people not authorize to own them. Again, not an issue of gun ownership but a matter of the government cracking down on these dealers. This does not play into how eliminating guns makes us safer.

5. A "law-abiding citizen" for the purposes of this debate, will be anyone who has not committed any violent crime or non-violent crime above small misdemeanors such as a possession charge or minor in consumption or reckless driving. Anyone convicted of a crime involving a weapon or some form of violent action or direct violation of another person's rights (i.e. burglary, rape, assault, etc) will not be considered a law-abiding citizen. Being as we are debating the benefits or non-benefits of eliminating guns from the civilian population, I see no harm in defining this in this fashion. While the legal definition may be looser or broader, due to space and eliminating confusion, I think this definition is acceptable. And through this definition it eliminates those that my opponent mentioned that have been convicted of crimes are were allowed firearms.

6. Now, in this next paragraph I ask all my readers to pay attention to my argument here and to question the validity of my opponent's argument from here on out (this is not a personal attack but questioning the validity of your argument). The reason for this is his sources and his data presented.
a. There is no means of getting actual numbers for illegally owned guns as they are illegally owned. The numbers presented are not validated. In addition, the escalation by exact numbers is a fallacy as there is no accounting for what measures to prevent illegal trafficking may take place so those estimations are not accurate, and by those estimations one could logically deduce that 10 years ago there were no illegal guns at all.
b. My opponent states that his source (which is just a domain not an article) say there are 341,000 guns stolen annually. The next sentence he says 23.775 (I will assume he meant a comma not a decimal though) are reported stolen annually. Which is it? To get a more accurate and reliable picture, and I'm going to be nice and throw my opponent a lifeline here, the actual Bureau of Justice Statistics, a government agency, gave us a number, average 232,400 annually. (
c. Four people every hour? That equals, 35040 annually. However, in 2008, only 16,272 murders were committed, and 10,886 of those with a gun. Where does this 35,040 come from? Are we including accidents? That adds another 613 deaths making the total 16,885. ( I'd ask my opponent to please show me where his numbers are coming from. In addition, his second page he lists ( equates it out to 80 deaths per day, in addition to 3000 gun crimes daily. Now, that makes 29,200 murders and 1,095,000 gun crimes. A 5000 statistical difference? And on the site I listed (justfacts) which has quoted sources on it as well, shows, that 436,000 violent crimes were committed with a gun. So that's a 251% jump in actual statistics.

Now, my own argument:
Using data from my Just Facts page, civilians used guns to defend themselves from violent crime 989,883 times in 2000. According to the BoJS ( 6,323,000 violent crimes happened that year. Meaning 1:6.3 were defended against. In addition, according to and ( which is not academic but posts its sources check if you want), in these shootings, (accounting for Aurora and Newtown), armed civilian intervention has an average of 1.8 deaths per incident. Waiting on police 14.29 per incident. Guns save lives when there are gun carrying criminals. Sure we have cops, but waiting on them kills people. Want training? Want qualifications? That's fine, but stripping civilians of weapons will get people killed.

I ask my opponent to validate his argument with credible sources, Gun Victims Action is just as propaganda as you claim the NRA to be. And to provide some argument as to how we'll actually benefit from making guns illegal to civilians as I have just shown that they have and do save lives.


Even though my opponent shows a great deal of intelligence, he has failed to prove how society benefits from gun ownership and its implications (illegal gun owners, black market for firearms, corrupted dealers, accidental shootings, negligent shootings, stolen guns, lost guns).

One of my points is that convicted criminals can go to a gun show and buy a gun regardless of the legality of the transaction. Yes, it is illegal as my opponent affirms, but my point is that it is possible, achievable. This happens because no background checks are conducted at that moment. Does my opponent expect that these criminals will provide on their own free will their rap-sheets to the dealers?

My opponent illustrates the crime rate in Mexico alleging that guns are illegal in that country, but fails to say that there are as many "illegal" guns in Mexico as in the U.S. due to the gun trafficking heading into that country from the U.S. Even Mexicans can come to the U.S. and buy guns in gun shows and move them south into their country. Remember that the Mexican government does not control what get into their country through the U.S./Mexico border.

"Criminals are not allowed to own guns," as my opponent claims, but since there is a gun market out there, they will always find ways to acquire firearms. If this market had not been in place, criminals would no have access to weapons. My opponent also proposes that the solution could be to have the government crack down on crooked gun dealers. In the meantime, our society will have to endure more sporadic mass killings until crooked dealers disappear, which is very unrealistic. They have been around for centuries and will continue as long as there is a demand for weapons.

Adding to these problems, we find the enthusiasm in the gun industry in manufacturing more advanced rifles that can even compete with military weaponry. Thanks god to regulations, because if it had been for gun manufacturers, we would have seen tanks, mortars, and missile launchers parked in our neighbors' driveways. Thanks to regulations we have been able to contain that belligerent mentality. The NRA would oppose any kind of restriction on gun manufacturers.

There are even other countries profiting from this market. Germany, for example, sells its firearms in the U.S. market. Selling them to its own citizens is not its objective, but to Americans.

If certain citizens were "law abiding citizens," they would not lose their guns, to begin with. Because of their failure to follow proper protocol for safeguarding their weapons, they lose control and lose them . Have you not heard about children accidentally shooting and killing their parents? This happens because even parents fail to properly secure their weapons even though there are children around.

My opponent acknowledges that someone who has been convicted of possession of illegal drugs still qualifies as a "law abiding citizen" therefore can buy firearms. The same goes with reckless driving. Reckless driving produces many accidents where people die. It is just irresponsible to allow these individuals to carry firearms. And the NRA will not lobby against it.

Guns do not save lives, as my opponent states. And in the best case scenario, someone survives a shooting while someone else get killed. If guns had not existed, no one would have to shoot someone else in order to stay alive.

With allowing civilians to carry firearms, we are granting them with the mean to end someone else's life. These "law abiding citizens" do not go through any kind of training as to the use of force and its different levels they could adopt when engaging individuals in certain situations. Why do other citizens have to trust gun owner's judgment?

How can we prevent this "law abiding citizens" from selling their firearms in the black market while reporting them as lost? Despite the fact that it is not a very common practice, it does happen. Presently, there are no consequences for losing one's gun; people just go and purchase another one.

In his previous debate about guns, my opponent claims that the reason for recent mass shootings experienced in our country has been the deteriorated psychological condition of the shooters. So, if my opponent understands that there are problematic personalities in our society, why does he still advocate for more weapons among our citizenry?

It is obvious that those shooters either had mental problems or were just shameless people. They did not have to be necessarily sick. Then my opponent assumes that with more access to health care facilities this problem of mass shootings can be eradicated. Naturally, more health services to these individuals will help. On the other hand, the fact that there are always going to be individuals, sick or healthy, with bad intentions is undeniable. Regardless of how much treatment is available, sick and shameless people will always exist.

Ultimately, I conclude that only law enforcement personnel, the military, security forces, some government officials, and some public employees should be allowed to carry firearms. We are not living in the wild west anymore, but in a technological era where what our students and teachers need are computers, books, printers, peace and harmony to prepared themselves to compete in this globalized economy. They do not need firearms, nor our students should be concerned about future mass shootings. After the Connecticut massacre, it is time to put aside our ego and narcissism
and start thinking about providing our children with a suitable and learning environment free from gun violence.
Debate Round No. 2


The problem I see throughout my opponent's entire argument is that it is completely off the topic, should we or should we not erradicate guns from society. While he mentions many times that we shouldn't have guns, or posing hypotheticals about if guns never exsted (which I will address), all of his arguments are about gun control and claimed problems that arise not from gun ownership but by lack of government oversight. Very few of these would be solved by eradication of guns.

1. The "gun show loophole," as it is often called, does not affect legal ownership that is being contested here. My opponent claims criminals can purchase firearms at these gun shows, and that is a problem. Alright, solved, eliminate on the spot sales at gun shows and require background checks. Next question.

2. I never said Mexico is a country in which guns are illegal. I never made any claims to the legality of guns in that country at all or provided any statistics regarding it whatsoever. I stated common knowledge to disprove the purpose of my opponent's analogy. Please do not say I said things that I didn't.

3. In that same paragraph, I see no connection of my opponent's statements about gun trafficking in Mexico. Even if it did hold relevance, the US and Mexican governments DO control what goes across the borders, or at least legally they do. Whether they enforce it or not is a different question, but this is not the debate at hand.

4. My opponent defeats himself in this next paragraph by stating "but since there is a gun market out there, they will always find ways to acquire firearms." This statement refutes anything my opponent can say on the matter because by this logic that my opponent provided, eliminating legal guns from the civilian population will not stop them as they will find a way to get them. He conflicts his own argument here, because if criminals will "always find ways to acquire firearms." then by my opponent's own logic no measures put in place will stop criminal trade of guns.

5. I will use one of the sources my opponent provided and I elaborated on by actually posting the link to the specific article, ( According to this page, ATF has 1800 agents to monitor 77,000 gun dealers. That's 42 a piece, or 84 if they work in pairs. Now, they claim it would take them 22 years to inspect all these dealers. Individually that would require each agent taking 191 days to complete a single inspection. I know the government is slow, but I don't think it's that inefficient. Even if each agent took a week to inspect their 42 locations, that's 294 days total. Less than a year. I'm pretty sure they're capable of accomplishing this task if they spent the time to do it. So cracking down is realistic. If they opened up a few more jobs, they could easily do two inspections a year if they wanted.

6. As for waiting til "crooked dealers disappear" well according to my opponent's logic in my point #4, eliminating the crooked dealers will not stop the shootings anyway so I see no reason for him to be complaining about how long it takes. In addition, I'd like to see his data on the crooked dealers providing a majority of these crime committing weapons, as well as data on the gun shows. And please from a site that's not falsifying numbers as the Gun Victims Action site was shown to be doing in my last round.

7. The gun industry is enhusiastic about new sell to the US government and military nd other national militaries. Sure, we can buy dumb-down versions of them, semi-autos that are no different from a hunting rifle and in many cases are used as hunting rifles due to their superior accuracy and reliability, but guns like the AA12, M16A2, HK416, or others in their fully automatic forms are not available to the public.

8. Yes, HK, Benelli, and other companies that are international sell to the US. And again, to the government. While they do have civilian models that they sell as well, they also compete for contracts with the US and other international armed forces. I don't see how international trade, however, is relevant.

9. Having something stolen is not a matter of you being a law-abiding citizen. If someone steals your wallet and goes and buys kiddie porn with it are you responsible? If someone smashes your car window and hotwires it and takes off drunk and kills someone are you responsible for the vehicular manslaughter? No. And again, I ask my opponent to show me statistics on people "losing" guns.

10. In 2007 there were 612 accidental deaths due to firearms. That is 68 times less than the number of deaths to motor vehicle accidents and less than a single percentage of the total number of accidental deaths in the US. ) So with that in mind, sure, there are accidents but there's accidents with anything and if we take something away due to accidents we have nothing. It's tragic, but it happens. How many parents leave a child unparented due to crashing a car? Should we strip the US of cars? Or what about kids accidentally getting ahold of a knife in the kitchen, there are 110 accidental deaths from cutting or piercing, it's lower but if we're playing the low numbers game then it's still relevant and we should ban knives.

11. If my opponent wants, lets cut down the list of law-abiding citizens to eliminate those with drug possession of any amount (so even if you got busted as a kid for smoking a joint at school but grew up and learned your lesson you now are a former criminal) and people that get reckless driving charges. There's still plenty of law abiding citizens left out there completely capable. I'll leave it up to my opponent to come up with what he wanted to argue there.

12. We are not debating hypotheticals about if guns never existed or not. Even if they didn't there was still murder pre-firearms. And, my argument was based in fact which my opponent didn't even address. More lives were saved in shootings with civilians that were armed than did when waiting for police intervention. Also, guns do save lives, saying they don't is illogical. If my opponent wants to say civilians with guns don't save lives, which I have proven false already, then ok, but if guns don't save lives at all then why do even police carry them? Yes, they do take lives, but in the hands of police and law abiding citizens more lives are saved than if only the bad guys had them. Oh, and in regards to my opponent's "best case scenarios" ( 498,000 times a year burglars are frightened away by a gun, no one shot.

13. Actually, to get a concealed carry license in most states training is required, and in addition, that is something many gun owners, including the NRA think should be more regulated.

14. Losing something does not warrant punishment. Refer to point #9/10

15. First of all, pulling former debates is not acceptable. You cannot verify if I was debating seriously, or if I was purposely throwing a debate or anything else. Take for example ( using this debate against the Pro in another debate would be wrong as he did it for show. Give me some reliable sources instead.

In conclusion of the round, I state, by my opponent's own statements, we do live in a wild west type system if criminals will get firearms no matter what. I also will state something my opponent stated earlier in this debate, "I do not blame anyone for carrying a gun." Leading to the assumption that my opponent agrees that guns do provide safety when there are other guns around in the hands of criminals. This counters his entire argument.
1. Guns provide safety when criminals have guns.
2. Criminals will obtain guns no matter what.
Therefore, civilians having guns leads to greater safety.



Contrary to what my opponent affirms, all the problems associated with gun violance exist because of the gun market that is allowed to operate. With a total erradication of firearms among our civilians, gun violence will be reduce to a great extend.

Instead of wasting tax payers' money to pay for more government oversight on an gun industry that only produce deaths, our government could allocate those funds in productive areas. Why does the gun industry not take responsibility and oversight the implications of its own business? Of course, I am in favor of a zero weapon policy, but until that happens, I cannot blame citizens for their fearing for their lives and desire to own a gun for self-protection. Therefore, I will be the first one to turn in my gun in the event Congress decides to collect all personal weapons in order to avoid more mass massacres in public places and other violence tragedies caused by this sick culture of firearm possession.

Can my opponent tell our audience how much money Federal agencies spend conducting background checks for the gun industry? (Tax payers' money)

Going back to offenses that are not taken into consideration in labeling an individual "law abiding citizen" for the purpose of issuing him a gun, "reckless driving", if we cannot trust someone in operating a motor vehicle, how come can we trust him or her in safeguarding a firearm?

Why does the NRA not lobby so that some practical regulations be in place in personal gun sales (from one individual to another one)? We all know that criminals get weapons this way since it is a process exempt from background checks. Most likely the NRA lobbies to just keep it as it is. Who cares?

We cannot even trust those who pass background checks. People can just go insane overnight, or act irresponsibly during the heat of the moment. That is why the best resolution is to get rid of the whole gun industry and gun market.

Once again, guns kill, they do not save lives. Doctors save lives. Killing one person to avoid the assassination of another one is not the type of resolution we need. The resolution we need is no deaths at all. That should be the ultimate objective. I do understand that the myth of "guns save lives" is a good advertisement strategy for the industry, but not everyone buys that fallacy. Hospitals save lives. Guns only trigger homicides.

Finally, I restate that criminals have guns because there is a free market for guns. Consequently, eliminating this free market an all guns from our civilians is the only way we can prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Good luck to my opponent, who just happen to be confused.
Debate Round No. 3


Since my opponent likes to ask me a lot of questions yet does not respond to any of the direct ones that I have asked him, all of which were simply to provide some form of evidence for his claims or to clarify his points, I will do the same.

My opponent asks why the gun industry doesn't take responsibility for its business. I ask, why doesn't the automotive? If the industry is to be responsible for the actions of those who use their products improperly, then the automotive should be the ones paying every speeding ticket, every blown stop sign, lets not forget the joint responsibility of the alcohol industry and automotive in being responsible for all the drunk drivers. This is a common tactic that many people, like my opponent, try to use in spreading out the blame so that it seems like more people are responsible for something than actually are. When in reality, the person who purchases a product is accepting and implying that they are capable of handling that product safely and for its proper use.

I'm also curious to know what kind of gun my opponent owns? I personally have an FN P-9. It's a great gun, I've used it for target shooting and as a security guard in the past. Since my opponent states he would be the first to turn his gun in, I'd like to know what he has? And if he does have one, how does he justify his entire argument? If he doesn't, then stop using false claims.

No. I could look up the information on how much is spent but being as right now I am the only person in this debate that has offered up any factual data I will leave that up to my opponent. I am not here to do his work for him, if that is something relevant to his argument he can do that himself. I have asked for information from him ONLY in instances where it was to prove his own claim that lacked any proof so that I could consider them valid arguments. I will not spend my time looking up information to relate to my opponent's argument. That alone should be points off conduct for trying to be lazy and not work at this debate.

The next paragraph my opponent clearly shows that he is not even reading my arguments. In the last round I stated that we can amend our definition to exclude "reckless drivers" and he still brings up their inability to drive. More loss of conduct on my opponent for not even paying attention and just ranting.

To address the question of the NRA. In fact a large majority of NRA members do support tighter gun control measures. These restrictions include background checks, forbidding violent offenders from owning, mandatory training for concealed carry, and others. The reason they're not passed is not because they don't want them, it is because legislators often cannot compromise on the regulations in place and try to add things into the bills that the NRA or others do not want. They may, for example, write a bill that require background checks but also bans handguns. Those in favor say we'll sign it without the ban on handguns then the anti-gun lobby will say, no it stays as is or doesn't happen, and then it doesn't happen and they go out and propagandize that the NRA and pro-gun people don't support background checks, ignoring the rest of the bill or the process. It's just the same as the problems with taxes right now, we're hitting deadlines and they refuse to at least compromise to pass the basics that will help the people. Both sides in the gun debate support background checks, no guns to violent offenders, no guns to those on terrorist watch-lists, mandatory reporting of stolen guns, and training for concealed carrying. If both sides are in favor of that then something should have passed to at least provide that measure of safety to the people, but it doesn't because lawmakers won't compromise. All they have to say is, "Here, we'll do this for now then we can debate the other points." But they won't do that. So the problem is not the NRA or the gun industry, it's the lawmakers themselves. (

People can go insane, people can also use many other things to kill. We can't legislate based upon the actions of an extremely small number of people.

The point my opponent makes of "assassinate one to save one" is not what I was saying at all by guns save lives. To use my opponent's terminology but changed to what it actually means, "assassinate one to save many." As I showed in a previous round, which I'm guessing my opponent did not read as he has clearly shown that he doesn't read my arguments, shooting events, in which armed civilians intervened, saved 12.49 more people per incident than those incidents where they waited for police. And in those where they waited for police, the police used guns to prevent more deaths to happen. The point is, yes, guns do kill, but because we live in a world where guns exist, and as my opponent already clarified that criminals will find ways to acquire guns no matter what, the truth of the matter is in a situation with an active shooter, when there are armed civilians or police around guns are used to prevent further death, which I would logically assume means saving lives. And in situations where civilians were the armed ones, more lives were saved.

My opponent again contradicts himself in his final statement. He argued in a previous round, and failed to show any rebuttal to my claim that he failed or show any statement that it was miswritten or anything like that, that criminals will acquire guns no matter what. Thus implying that the free market of guns is NOT the only way they get them. I agree with my opponent that I am confused, but not for reasons he implies, I am confused as to how he can justify saying the free market of guns to civilians is the only way criminals acquire guns when he has argued previously that there is a black market for them. Black market gun sales do not solely come from civilians and crooked dealers as he suggests. In fact few do come from that, and I ask him to show proof to the contrary as that is a claim he made earlier which I refuted by showing his source was not credible. Take operation Fast and Furious, the government provide guns to criminals. How about selling them to the mujahadeen or other groups around the world that are or became criminal. What about guns from other countries? There are far more ways that criminals get guns than just crooked dealers and stealing them. In fact, I will use my opponent's own claims, since he has failed to, nor seems to care about providing any valid proof to his arguments, to prove this point. My opponent used a site with shoddy numbers, yet on that site it claimed ATF found about 12K "missing guns" from crooked dealers. Now, by that site's estimate it will take 22 years to check all the stores. So, lets "assume" that the numbers are correct and are the same for all the other stores. That means 264K guns a year from crooked dealers, add that to the true numbers I provided of stolen guns, 232,400. That means 496,400 illegally acquired guns. Now, lets "assume" my opponent's numbers, which I asked for proof on but none was given, was accurate and in 5 years we went up 5 million more illegal guns. That means a million per year. If criminals only get guns from the ways my opponent claims, where are these 503,600 extras coming from? Now, these numbers are inflated as well as the site I was referring to had nearly double the amounts for everything, if not more, and their ATF stats were highly inflated, but even with these extreme false numbers, my opponent's argument has no merit.

I ask the readers, consider these things when reading this. While you may agree with my opponent that guns are a horrible thing, he has yet to show one single piece of credible proof. Even when I have attempted to give him possible sites and information to use. He has clearly ignored my arguments and only provided opinions with no credibility. Consider these things readers.


My opponent should not worry about the audience since they will favor him, anyway.

And, believe it or not, I understand why the audience will favor my opponent's view. As he said, "there is a wild west out there." The wild west mentality is what should not reign at all, nor should exist a gun industry that has caused this kind of surviving atmosphere where the only solution for our people is buying guns. Successfully, the gun industry has been so smart that has created a market for its products. As a result, a black market that depends and feed itself from the legal market is also in place.

People do not feel safe with pistols anymore, the gun industry has originated such a chaos that makes its costumers buy AR-15s and AK-47s, among other assault rifles.

We have reached a point where the only solution for the government is destroy (decimate) or burn all gun factories, offering reparation to the owners. That is how chaotic the situation is.

Naturally, it will not make everyone happy, but, at least, will make our children and schools safer. No other solution will fix this issue. The security of our children outweighs the desire for guns.

Many people are unhappy anyway, either because marihuana or cocaine are still illegal or for any other reason.

My well-liked opponent keeps comparing the automobile industry to the gun industry in a way that makes him look like he is oblivious of the fact that automobiles are not made for killing people as guns are.

My contender expresses that the NRA wants more gun regulations while fails to show evidence as to the steps taken by the NRA to get it done.
Has the NRA lobbied for gun regulations as they do for assault rifles?

I challenge my opponent to show what the NRA has done to make the government implement more gun regulations. If he fails, it will be solid evidence that this scheme is nothing more than pure propaganda and lip service by the NRA.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent claims the audience will "favor me" and also claims I am spouting propaganda of the NRA. I'd like to make a few things clear right now.
1. The only reason I see no contention for the win is not simply due to my belief in my argument but the fact that my opponent has not provided any substantial data or facts to back up a single word he has said. Had my opponent actually tried to seriously debate this topic and provided data and facts and an actual case for what he argues for then this would have been a great and highly intelligent debate.
2. Not once have I used the NRA as a source, and only in a minor way have I even mentioned them.
3. Propaganda is defined as:
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
I am not a spokesperson of any movement, group, institution, nation, or anything else. I am simply in an academic debate with someone and debating factual data that leads readers to make an informed decision on an issue. This is not propaganda, this is debating and arguing.

So I'd appreciate it if my opponent would at least spend his final round repectfully and intelligently debating this issue rather than spending it belittling people and spewing false accusations and unchecked or backed ideas and opinions.

The wild west mentality has reigned for centuries. Whether it was guns, crossbows, swords, or rocks, people have been trying to kill each other since th dawning of humanity. If we strip them of one weapon they'll find another. In addition, people buy guns for many more reasons than just safety. Also, the black market my opponent speaks of will persist even if you eliminate them from the hands of civilians, something he said so himself...

The gun industry didn't create the world of chaos that we live in. Please explain how this happened?

AR-15s and AK-47s are not assault rifles all the time. AR-15s are often used as hunting rifles, and AK-47s that are non-automatic are used for target, spot and game shooting as well.

If the government burns down all the gun factories how will the police get their guns? That's by far the most contradictory statement my opponent has made. He has argued that only police and military should have guns (oh and certain civilians, like security guards and things like that), yet he now claims we should burn down all gun factories. This is what is known as propaganda and radical and nonsenseical ideas that spread fear in our societies. It is statements and soapbox speeches like this that cause problems in this nd other countries.

Burning down all the gun factories will not make our children safe. It'll eliminate the ability for police and military to get new weapons and there are still criminals out there with guns and other weapons that they can hurt the children with. Need I remind anyone of the numerous bombings, plane crashings, and other attacks that happen here and around the world? Without an armed police and military we have no protection from that. In addition what does it do about the 270 million legal guns in the US? This is just a crazy idea that is nonsensical and pointless.

Please in some universe tell me what marijuana and cocaine have anything to do with this debate?

My comparison of the auto industry was in relation to a horrible concept not even part of this debate, where people would be charged for having something stolen from them if that was used in a fashion that was illegal. While automobiles were not designed to kill, the truth of the matter is they kill thousands more than firearms do every year, and many of those are due to illegal conduct. The premise I made is that having something stolen from you is not a crime and to charge those that have something stolen from them is just wrong. Guns are not just made for killing, guns are made for target shooting and other practices. Some guns are made to kill but not all. Just like some motor vehicles are made to kill, like tanks for example, which by the way, some tanks are legal to own and made street legal, however it is illegal to load their weapons. So, by this concept, some automobiles are made to kill and can be used improperly and illegally. Returning to my opponent's claim, the difference is guns are made to kill therefore makes it applicable to cars. Same goes for knives, not all knives are made to kill but some are, and because of that, just like some guns are made to kill and some aren't even though they can be used for that, just like knives can then by my opponent's argument knives that are stolen, even if it's a kitchen knife, should be responsible to the owner.

I'm not even going to address the NRA points, not out of lack of ability but because my opponent has not shown any credible evidence to back up his arguments and I have proven all his points wrong with validated and credible evidence and so I am not going to waste my time. In addition it would only fuel his ranting about NRA propaganda.


Now since this is my last round, I am going to wrap this up quite simply. First of all, I recognize that things I said in this last round may be harsh and may seem dsrespectful, however, at this point, my opponent has not taken this debate seriously at all, he has not provided any evidence, spent paragraphs ranting and spewing opinions that have no basis in fact, and in multiple cases berated my and my own self, calling me confused and a propagandist.

Throughout this debate, I have strived and strained to maintain a level of respectable composure even whist my opponent blasted wave after wave of unfounded claims, ideas, and falsities at me.

I know that many may agree with my opponent that guns should be taken away. However, this site is not here to just "agree with someone" from the get-go. This site is for true, respectable and factual debate.

My opponent claims that I shouldn't worry cause I'm "well liked" and that you'll all "favor me" but I ask all of you, don't vote because you favor me, (which I don't see where he even gets that idea, I'm new to the site and have not developed a reputation here anway), I ask you vote based on this debate and the conduct, sourcing and arguments presented. Write comments and explain your reasons and vote credibly. My opponent is basically saying I'll win by default due to popularity. While I don't see any popularity that I have anyway, and while I do want to win of course, vote based on merit and the debate, not on the people or who you agreed with beforehand. If you were on his side before, put that aside and read through and make your decision. If you were on my side before, read through and make your decision. If you were tied before, read through and make your decision. But vote like the peers you are, the fellow debaters and academics and intelligent people that are able to read these debates and make informed decisions.

In the end, my final statement comes down to this. Guns cause problems, but the issues that arise are not of the fact that we own them, it's the control over them. What control that is, that's for another debate. But ultimately, I have shown factual data showing that people have defended themselves from violence with guns, people have saved their families with guns, and statistically armed civilians result in fewer deaths than relying on police. While the fact remains that there is a black market for guns and guns do get stolen, 270 million civilian owned firearms, 70-80 million legal gun owners, and the rates of gun violence are extremely low. There are tens of millions of completely competent and legal gun owners out there that don't deserve to have that right stripped away. Boost control over trade regulation, sure, but stripping them is futile and will result in less safety.



Let's forgive my opponent for taking New Year's Eve off even though he was not authorized to do so. But it is okay.

This chaotic situation caused by the proliferation of firearms can only be fixed by a radical change in our gun policies, no matter how many people get dissatisfied. But we should ensure that another massacre does not occur. Nothing is impossible in the United States of America thanks to the fact that we live in a democracy where issues can be solved. Fortunely, we are not facing a dictatorship.

"Guns do kill people." It does not take much for an insane person to press a trigger and kill thirty people in less than five minutes. Conversely, for someone to kill the same number of people with a knife a really evil soul is required. By looking at assault rifles at stores, insane and heartless individuals may get encouraged and motivated to commit atrocious acts. It only takes one disgraceful person with a rifle to cause all the damage we have seeing recently at schools, malls, and theaters.

The country does not need to go through another revolution, like when slavery was abolish, or another civil rights movement, like the one with Martin Luther King; however, a 360 degrees change in policy will have to take place. I do have a lot of faith in President Obama, and I feel very optimistic that a reasonable resolution will prevail over weak measures or the "do nothing" approach, like the one my contender proposes.

As I mentioned before, I understand that out of fear and nervousness people want to arm themselves to the teeth. According to Foxnews, "Gun sales surged after Connecticut massacre." Foxnews also affirms that before the shooting AR-15s were selling at $700.00 while after the shooting the price increased to $1100.00.

Therefore, fear among our society is the issue, fear of being the target of a shooter, a shooter who could be the nicer guy on earth and the most honest citizen with a clean background who just happens to go insane or mad overnight, all of a sudden.

Solving the fear factor that is cajoling people into buying more and heavier guns is key to ending gun violence. The resolution: The ending of gun sales to the general public, and the starting of a buying out program.

Simply put, we cannot trust our civilian population with the handling and storing of firearms. When a legal gun market is open to certain individuals, a black market will follow for other individuals. Without a legal market, law enforcement can concentrate all its efforts and focus on the eradication of a black market. That is, with a legal output of weapons, a black market is difficult to tackle.

I understand that many of us like a rifle to shoot an invader in the event someone breaks in our houses. Many people want a gun so that they can shoot a troublemaker trying to steal their wallets. I know that many people would like a gun to shoot at someone stealing their vehicles. But even if that is what we want, that is that the right course of action. For the benefit of our schools, sacrificing our guns is the best solution. Be cognizant, too, that many legal gun owners end up in jail for misusing their guns in incidents where the shooting is not justifiable, even when they are the initial victim.

Once again, the handling of weapons should not be the task of civilians. People tend not to secure their guns, lose their guns, sale their guns without a background check from the buyer, have accidental and negligent discharges, allow access to their guns to children, etc.

Actually, the shooting in Connecticut transpired because the legal gun owner (the mother) left her guns unsecured, allowing for her son to take them. She even had the ammunition accessible to the shooter.

All in all, we all like guns, but the safety of our children is being compromised due to our firearms. So, guns should go. Guns are not a necessity anymore as they were when the second amendment was arranged. Different times require different approaches. Guns, as of now, represent the most dangerous issue affecting our right to live in peace and harmony.

Sources Dec. 18, 2012
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hallcyon11 3 years ago
So we should have guns so woman can kill rapists. why can't people use rubber bullets?
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
Or even, "I value minimizing harm to law-abiding citizens."
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
hallcyon11, "If a country has no guns, it has far less deaths. It's a no brainer."

If "less deaths" is all you value, then it's a no-brainer for you. You will not have much success persuading others, though, since most Americans have a more sophisticated value system. For example, suppose a random bad guy tried to rape and torture a woman and she stopped him by shooting him dead. By your advocated value, this is bad. By most American's values, this is good. [Note: Many wouldn't be "happy" the rapist/torturer died, but they would consider that outcome much better than the alternative.]

Now, once you state a more sophisticated value system such as "I value less deaths of law-abiding citizens", it's no longer clear "less guns" is better. In fact, many statistics show the opposite is true. I successfully defended handguns with more than six rounds on those grounds in this debate--

Often, when one feels a complex issue is simple, they don't fully grasp the issue.
Posted by hallcyon11 3 years ago
If a country has no guns, it has far less deaths. It's a no brainer. What is the purpose of guns?

1. It's the second amendment.
2. They are fun.
3. They are for defence.

Isn't it obvious that these reasons shouldn't make guns permissible? Is this not the end of the story?
Posted by mylittlebrony 3 years ago
I got 3 guns im 14 if its illegal iam go crazy with pony rage RAINBOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Canadian-In-Florida 3 years ago
Are you really trying to falsify things I have said or just plain make them up?
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Once upon the time everyone thought the earth was flat. But it wasn't.
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
I do know someone who believes that people should have access to any kind of weapons, including nuclear bombs. That person is our friend Canadian-in-Florida. Remember "Bombs do not kill people, people kill people." And I was not the one saying that.
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
> "I have concluded that the reason they want to maintain any kind of weapons available in the market "

You previously labeled them "pro-assault rifle advocates". Now you label them "any kind of weapon advocates". I don't know anyone who believes the average citizen should be able to have nuclear weapons, but I know plenty for/against assault rifles as defined in the assault weapons ban some years ago. I'd suggest you've picked a non-representative subset of the group or you've misrepresented their views. Either way, you'll have trouble convincing people to look at the world your way, unless you first listen to and understand how they look at the world.
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
After listening to some pro-assault rifles advocates, I have concluded that the reason they want to maintain any kind of weapons available in the market is to justify their belief that weapons in people's hands is a necessity so that they can overthrow the government if they deem it necessary. It is just an utopia, but it is what feed their ego and fanaticism. If assault rifles were to disappear, their thesis (belief) would make no sense any more even though it does not make any sense since long to rational citizens.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro gave me no reason to believe that gun regulations would solve the problems at hand.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
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: See my detailed explanation in the comments.