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

The Complete Banning of Firearms in the United States

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 44183
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




This is my first debate :)

Round 1: Opening Argument
Round 2: Rebuttel
Round 3: Conclusion

Guns do more good than harm in the United States. Although there are many mass shootings and homicides there are far more cases in which guns are used in self defense. Regardless if the 2nd Amendment actually grants the right to gun ownership I believe it is an important deterent to tyranny, foreign invasion, and crime.


I am sorry to see that you miss an important aspect of the ban of fire arms. Peace. Without the abundance of fire arms, accidental death and murder rates would plummet. Without fire arms, civilian casualties during war would almost be unseen as one does not just kill hundreds with a knife. The Utopian society that would emerge would prosper with good health, peace, and less violence.
Debate Round No. 1


I have some problems with the points that you brought up:

1. "Without the abundance of fire arms, accidental death and murder rates would plummet." - First off, in the case of the United States, when you take firearms out of the equation murder rates skyrocket. For example, Chicago has no civilian ranges and has banned assault weapons. Now wouldn't you expect them to have a low death by gun rate? Nope! Chicago leads the nation in murder. Also, we can examine Washington D.C. There they have even have bans on handguns. Obviously, such laws explain why gun crime has only increased since the legislation was created and D.C. also leads the nation in crime.

2. You say "Without fire arms, civilian casualties during war would almost be unseen as one does not just kill hundreds with a knife." I fail to see exactly what your point is. You do understand that during war civilians would be killed by a foreign army and not other civilians right? I'm not sure what you're getting at. However, civilians owning guns actually helps to combat any kind of invasion. Take the Free French Army for example. They're a civilian force armed by guns that civilians owned that killed thousands of Nazis and are called one of the most effective forms of resistance to date.

3. "The Utopian society that would emerge would prosper with good health, peace, and less violence." The United States has thousands of miles of unprotected borders with Mexico and Canada. Tell me how we could keep guns out of the country if the first place. I'd just like to give you some notable examples of countries who have banned firearms: China, North Korea, the former USSR, Nazi Germany, Cuba, etc. Now I'm not saying that there aren't countries that have banned guns and experience very low gun crime rates but a 2007 Harvard study shows that banning firearms doesn't actually lower gun crime.

People love to believe that the United States has this outrageous gun problem but in reality our homicide by gun rate is nearly the same as Liechtenstein’s. (Just to put it in perspective)



This being my first debate, i feel compelled to say that i am no match for you and have much to learn. if you have any advice for me to learn or get better, please give it to me. i resign the debate.
Debate Round No. 2


This debate is also my first, I joined the website just a few days ago. As a newbie myself I'm probably not the best source of information on how to be better. However, if I could give any advice I guess it would be to pick an issue that is important to you, you already have background information on, and you know you can compile the best possible arguement for or against. Thanks for the debate even if it was shortlived haha. XD So should we just post our conclusion and end it?


nevedarkwolf forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Cheetah 2 years ago
Well, I'm technically not American too, but I do know more about US than my country.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
If pro isn't American then his opinion is irrelevant.
Posted by Cheetah 2 years ago
Maybe Pro's not American, he may have a different founding father
Posted by thechronic2014 2 years ago
it doesnt matter what anyones opinion is. out founding fathers gave us that right. they intended for us to have as good of arms as our government
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
Is pros opening round serious? Crime and accidental death would plummet? That spill about war? So no one ever had a war or killed tens of thousands BEFORE the invention of firearms ?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, though at least he was kind enough to state why, so conduct remains tied. Con's argument wasn't exceptionally good, though. He analyzes cities that have banned guns when the discussion is about a nationwide ban (which would have significantly higher impact on the number of and access to guns). He talks about preventing invasion with a civilian army, neglecting that such an invasion would take place with tanks, bombers and destroyers, all of which would be little affected by a person owning a semi-automatic rifle. Technology has moved forward since the 1940's, and unlike the Nazis, such an invading force would be able to use much of their resources to destroy such resistance groups. Just seems like there are easy routes of attack here.