The Instigator
thebrett2
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Should guns get banned?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 650 times Debate No: 71854
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

thebrett2

Con

No, because they are mostly to use as self defense. Some people use guns to co mite crimes, but that is the person not the gun. Also there are already law say that it is against the law to kill people (unless its in self defense), rob bank, and etc.
Wylted

Pro

If we eliminate access to guns than nobody can commit gun crimes.
Debate Round No. 1
thebrett2

Con

Well, I see what you are trying to say, but then only criminals will have guns. Therefore if they kill someone they have already broken a law, but they don't care about breaking another.
Wylted

Pro

1. Outlawing guns will eliminate or reduce the chances of obtaining firearms for lots of citizens. Guns are not like drugs where people are motivated to get them come hell or high water because of a chemical addiction. This reduction in the amount of guns would prevent a lot of accodental deaths, suicides and crimes involving a gun. Laws typically don't stop the bad guys from getting guns, because they can easily steal them from law abiding citizens, but If you don't allow law abiding citizens to have them it will be harder for the bad guys to get them as well.

2. A lot of people complain that the police force or other types of law enforcement are operating with a skeleton crew. This is more true in some jurisdictions than others. The more guns available to the public, the weaker the police force is. If the police force is more well armed than the general population, than they can. The laws are democraticly decided and an extension of the will of the public, so what you are doing is increasing the power and authority of a democratically decided force and laws as opposed to a sort of emotional pseudo mob rule.

3. Though mass murders are rare, they do happen. A lot of times, somebody is suffering from a temporary mental breakdown and their murderous impulses will soon pass, but with access to guns, gained legally their urges can have more devastating and longterm effects.

http://mobile.nytimes.com...

Vote pro
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by jonnychan 2 years ago
jonnychan
Yeah lets take the guns out of the hands of all ordinary citizens and only have the military and police with access to guns. Then let us all hope that gun smugglers cease to exist and that USA will never be taken over from within by a dictator/army.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Stfu
Posted by CyberConor 2 years ago
CyberConor
I already know thebrett2 will win.
Here is why:
Guns protect us from criminals. Criminals can get at us with a knife, why not just shoot them? But you can't because you have no gun. Or they have an illegal gun. Too bad for you, you law abiding citizen.

We banned so many drugs. Did that work? Answer: no!

Guns are also a way of life. It's part of our culture, hunting, and sports.

If our government turns against us citizens, then we can take it back. That is why the founding fathers had it as the 2nd amendment. It protects all the other amendments.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
thebrett2WyltedTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Pro. I don't know the reason why Pro waited until the last round to present those three arguments. They should have come sooner rather than later, but there was no real rule against presenting arguments in the last round unlike in some other debates. On top of those three strong arguments which remain standing unchallenged since they are in the last round though, Con based his only rebuttal on assumptions. There was no supporting evidence given in any round by him to validate such claims. I'm tempted to just give it a tie since I don't really know how to weigh arguments given in the last round that had no real chance at being rebutted, but Pro slightly comes out on top due to the strength of those arguments compared to Con. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize sources in this debate whereas Pro had at-least one.
Vote Placed by simonstuffles 2 years ago
simonstuffles
thebrett2WyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because Pro raised all his proper arguments in the last round. Spelling and grammar was all fine. Pro argued and explained his case. Con just stated and came up with a short rebuttal. Pro used a source.