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

The US Should Ban all Firearms

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/13/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 633 times Debate No: 84934
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




This is a debate between me and @Raskuseal. This is a rematch of a previous debate we did, in which there were inadequate rounds for a proper debate. Thus, the rematch.


The United States should enact a nationwide ban on all firearms by the state and federal governments.


United States: refers to both federal and state governments, this helps to focus the debate on the issue of a gun ban, rather than the role of a government, or other irrelevent issues.

Should: I’m going to use Whiteflame’s definition, “This simply designates that we are engaged in a policy debate, and therefore what should happen. This is distinguished from 'could,' as what we are discussing is whether abolition should or should not happen, rather than whether it could given current impediments in Congress and elsewhere. This also implies a net benefits framework, where we'll be debating the merits of our respective cases."

Firearm: Any kind of gun.


1. No forfeits

2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate

3. No new arguments in the final round

4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere

5. No trolling

6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc.)

7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions

8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate

9. The BOP will be shared. Meaning that Pro has to convince the judge of his stance despite Con’s reasons, and Con has to convince the judge of his stance despite Pro’s reason.

10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Debate Format

Round 1: Con’s opening case.

Round 2: Pro’s opening case then Con’s rebuttals of Pro’s opening case.

Round 3: Pro’s rebuttal of Con’s case, then Con’s defense of his case

Round 4: Pro’s defense of his case, Con waives round.

In Con waiving the final round, he should say, “no round as agreed”, or something along the lines of that.



I accept this debate on whether or not Firearms should be banned. I will do my best to abide by the rules within the round limit and to make and prove my case. Good luck and good sportsmanship!

I believe that firearms shouldn't be banned for a variety of reasons. To start, the founding fathers of America knew of the utmost importance of what simply having firearms can have on a nation. When Thomas Jefferson and John Addams were drafting the Articles of Confederation, then later, Constitution, They made sure to give U.S citizens the right to bear arms.
They knew that guns were for more then just hunting. They knew that guns were not just for self protection against criminals, but to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, just like the one that they barley managed to best by the skin of their teeth from a few years earlier in 1776. People who oppose gun ownership will say "But there were no automatic weapons back then!" Nope! there were actually SEVERAL WORKING automatic weapons made even before colonist were thinking of revolution. For example, There was the Puckle-gun,(an automatic cannon mounted to navel ships), Lorezni Flint Lock pistol(lever action repeating pistol), and Pepperbox firearms(Multiple Barrels on a stock).
The founding fathers, when they became presidents later, actually enjoyed shooting prototype guns.
In the next round, I will explain just what really happens when guns are outlawd.
Debate Round No. 1


My case will focus on the amount of deaths that the existence of firearms causes in America, and thus to save these lives, firearms should be banned. Since the value of lives outweigh all other factors (e.g. cost, culture, etc.), the outcome of this debate relies heavily on Con’s ability to refute the following contentions.

C1) Suicides
If guns were to be banned, this would greatly decrease the lives taken by suicide.

“Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment.” [1]

When a person possesses a gun, they are more likely to commit suicide, (3 times more likely) [2]. This is because when someone is feeling depressed, they think of the gun sitting in the closet, and a way out of their pain. This causes them to think about committing suicide, and sometimes they do. When you take away the gun from the situation, they don’t think about that way out, and are less likely to take that way out.

Suicide by firearm is also more likely to successful; more than half of all suicides are done by firearm [3] and 85% of these are successful [4]. If a gun is taken out of the situation, the troubled person will be forced to use a less lethal method. By using a less lethal method, his/her chances of successfully killing themselves in lowered drastically. Now that the person is more likely to survive the suicide attempt, they can get help and receive treatment for their depression, which cures them of it 80-90% of the time [5].

By taking away gun rights, you effectively give the victim the chance to recover and get their life back. You reduce the amount of suicides nationwide, saving millions of lives.

C2) Homicide
Enacting a ban on firearms would dramatically decrease the amount of homicides.

Firearms are a criminal’s favorite tool; easily concealed, fast, fatal and easy. No wonder of the 12,765 murders in 2012; 8,855 of them were performed with firearms, 69.4% of all homicides [6].

Taking away the murderer’s most effective weapon forces murderer’s to use a different weapon, a less effective one, making murders less effective and saving thousands of innocent lives in the process.

C3) Accidents
A firearm is an extremely dangerous object. An accidental bump, or brush of the trigger unleashes a high-powered bullet that destroys everything in its path. Firearms claim thousands of accidental deaths every year.

"In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…” [7]

Gun accidents are the worst kind of death; they are senseless, completely devoid of purpose. They leave anyone involved with the act a terrible sense of guilt that stays with them for the rest of their life. If guns were to be banned, this would never happen again.

I conclude that a ban on guns would be effective in achieving its objective; saving lives, by reducing the amount of homicides, the amount of suicides, and the amount of deaths caused by firearm accidents.

[1] "Suicide." Harvard Injury Control Research Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015. 4.

[2] Zadrozny, Brandy. "Study Finds People with Guns More At-Risk for Suicide and Homicide." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

[3] "US Methods of Suicide." Suicide Method Statistics in the USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

[4] "Lethality of Suicide Method." Means Matter. N.p., 11 Sept. 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

[5] "Save. Suicide Awareness Voices of Education." SAVE. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

[6] "Murder Victims, by Weapons Used." Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

[7] Frum, David. "Are Gun Accidents 'Very Rare'?" The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2015.


C1.) Suicide
Do you honestly believe that if guns were taken away, people would not commit suicide? There are SEVERAL other ways of killing your self without guns, you know. After guns are poison! Everybody has at least a dozen different kind of poison scattered throughout there house. Cleaning solution, such as bleach or or even SOAP,which has an antibacterial chemical used in soap is pretty close to agent orange as it's a potent nerve chemical. Then there are pesticides and herbicides, which is poison that is strong enough to kill people too if they drank it, not just pests in your lawn. And for America? A more recent study by the HRF (health research funding) done in 2010 have stated that for America, we came in tenth place for the amount of suicide committed per nation. First place is Greenland, of all places! then South Korea, Then Lithuania, then Guyana, then Kaytsichastan, then Belarus, then China, then Slovenia, Hungary and japan. America is in tenth place with 38, 364 estimated suicides per year. Plus, Suicide is actually only the tenth leading cause of death, next to murder, drunk driving, and diseases.

C2.) Homicides
Enacting a ban on Firearms would actually INCREASE the crime rate.
Over in developed country like Germany and England, The crime rate for rape, break ins, and burglaries are actually HIGHER then in America! You see, The founding Fathers gave US the right to bear arms so we could protect our selves! VIP's for example, like the president, Rich people, Corporate CEO's, and Musicians all have heavily armed security guards armed with firearms(Commonly Pistols) so they can protect their boss. So by denying the general populace the right to protect themselves from criminals, you are devaluing civilian life because then we aren't even worth protecting! Not to mention what always happens when the general population is powerless to stop a tyrannical government because they don't have guns!
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians under Turkish rule, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million innocent Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
"In 1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
So now you see, Gun control will not make death go down, but up actually! And then there are Knife crimes! when a criminal can't get a gun, they will steal one or build one! it's not that hard. all you have to do is get a metal barrel, put explosive powder in it, and then a projectile. BAM! homemade gun. Then there are other long range weaponry, such as throwing knifes, bows, crossbows, and spears, just to name a few. SO if a criminal can't get a gun, he'll just use a knife. Gut their victims like an animal when they rob them or kill them.

C3. Accidents
This one is real easy to explain, so I can be short on this one. Accidents with firearms are caused because people don't know how to handle them. Waaaaaay back in the day, children were careful with guns because their fathers taught them how to use them and they were around them all the time. Kids knew how to properly clean them, they could shoot straight, and they knew basic, common gun safety rules, such as always treating a gun as if it were loaded, even if it's not: Never substitute a safety switch for being unsafe with a firearm: and keep firearms out of children reach. If you ever buy a gun, it ALWAYS comes with a booklet for how to use your gun and the very first few pages always have safety instructions on them. So what we need actually, is MORE GUN SAFETY CLASSES for adolescents. Now, have you ever heard of Murphy's law? Murphy's law states that accidents are unavoidable and that we will never know when they happen. So the only thing we can do is to help prevent them by doing everything in the beginning of this paragraph.
Now that i have stated my side of the debate, I will let my opponent, Hayde, have his turn. Good luck and good sportsmanship!
Debate Round No. 2


In this round, I will refute my opponent’s case.

The first argument that Con makes is that guns aren’t just for hunting, they are for defending against criminals as well.

But the amount of people that actually use guns in self-defense are miniscule. According to the U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2007-2011, only 0.8% of victims used a firearm in self-defense. The least used method of self defense.

The second argument that Con makes is that guns help protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

This point is wrong because
1) There are already more than enough ways to check the government’s power and stop a tyrannical government from forming. Such as separation of powers (Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches), checks and balances, the Constitution, the ability to vote on decisions (democracy), rule of law (government must follow its own laws), the United Nations, and many, many others. The chance that the US would become a tyrannical government, and the people would have to take over to stop it is no miniscule a possibility that the benefits that I listed far outweigh this.

2) Even if the people were to get to the point where they have to take over the government, what chance do they have? It's a few people with some shotguns and rifles against tanks, special operations, advanced missiles, etc. A revolution would only be a bad thing since it will result in a great number of lives lost, as well as an extremely (almost zero) possibility of winning. Again, banning guns saves lives, even in this instance.

After this, Con makes a defensive argument that automatic weapons in fact did exist during Colonial times. This has no impact for Con’s side unless I bring up the argument that assault weapons didn’t exist during the Colonial times. I did not make that argument, thus no impact.

In the end, Con’s case is entirely negated.


Alright, let me clear a few things up. My first argument about colonial automatic weapons was for Liberals who believe that the Constitution is out of date and didn't count for modern weapons because they didn't exist at the time. And the other thing I want to to clarify is "assault weapons". There is NO SUCH THING AS ASSAULT WEAPONS! That term is completely fictitious and created by liberal media as anti-gun lies! Now there are "assault rifles", and there are only TWO requirements for a weapon to classified as an assault rifle. First: it must be fully automatic, and second: it must fire a bullet between that of a pistol and a full rifle round. As you can probably guess, LOTS of weapons meet at least ONE of those, but very few ever actually meet BOTH requirements. Now, everybody remembers Bill Clinton as the president inn the 80's, right? During his presidency, he actually passed a law making civilian ownership of assault rifles illegal. So people who are trying to make assault rifles illegal are trying to pass a law that was already passed over 20 years ago!
Now, on to a more modern topic. Have you ever heard of Carol Brown? probably not as the liberal media swept it under the rug as soon as it happened so it won't interfere with their anti-gun plan. Carol Brown was a 39 year old woman who lived in New Jersey. She had a boyfriend that she broke up with because he was a violent person. After reviving several threats from him, she did several smart things. She added security cameras and an alarm system to her home. She also applied for a protective restraining order to keep Michal Ethel( Her ex-boyfriend) away from her. Then finally, she decided to purchase a handgun for self defense against him.................But then she was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend in her OWN DRIVEWAY! Unfortunately for here, New Jersey has overly restrictive gun laws and permit application was put on delay for 3 months when she should have been able to get everything done in 30 days. She was left defenseless by the very system that was supposed to protect her! The brutal murder of Carol by Michal caused people throughout the nation to realize that Brown was PURPOSELY left defenseless by anti-gun politicians. If she had tried to buy a gun in a different, more Conservative state to protect herself from the bigger, stronger attacker, she would have succeeded and would have survived.

Now for the B.S statistics you found about the so-called "miniscule" amount of self-defense firearm usage. I have a website that proves that wrong, and shows the actual statistics.
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
I don't know about you, but these are very impressive statistics that, in a prefect world, would diffuse your argument. But we live in a bad world, so I will have to add more to drive the point home.

My argument about the armed citizen keeping the government in check. You claim that armed citizens aren't able to keep the government in check. In that, you do hold some merit. The current president, Obama, has skipped Congress. His word is law and whatever he and his leftist cronies want, they get. Most of the new laws didn't even go through the three branches of government. He creates a law, and if congress denies it, he skips them and does executive action. He did it with the new gun restriction and he done it the gay marriage, even though it represents less then 2% of the U.S population!

Your idea that resistance is futile because the armed forces are FAR Superior then law abiding citizens is true. You know what else is true? How fierce the Taliban were in the middle east! They LITERALLY LIVE IN CAVES! NO ELECTRICITY! Yet, they proved a very difficult challenge for the army. Do you know why? They used Gruella tactics. Hit and run when they least expect it and run before they can retaliate. It's been proven time and time again that a very small army can take on, and even BEAT a far bigger and better equipped army.

Now for my final argument for this round, I will prove that America was protected FROM FOREIGN INVASION because of the sheer amount of guns in America. To start, has anyone heard of the 80's movie, or the 2013 remake of the the film, "Red Dawn"? I believe that what happens in it is the exact reason why citizens NEED firearms. Basically, a group of high school students help fight the invading Russians (or North Koreans in the remake). They succeed even though they are out gunned and out manned because they used gruella tactics and worked WITH the U.S army to bolster it's strength since most of our troops aren't home, They're overseas.
Now, back to the past. Specifically, 1942. America just joined WW2 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japaneses plan to invade America in their quest to dominate the pacific. They already have dominance over have of the eastern ocean and many of the islands. In fact, Japanese were READY AND ABLE to invade the homeland with their secret super weapons, such as submersible aircraft carriers and their hot-air balloon incendiary bombs. Thankfully, The Japaneses emperor, Emperor Hirohito, was well aware of the amount of guns in America and realized that an invasion would never work, and he quoted, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

So we have armed citizens to thank for preventing a Japanese invasion of the East Coast. So let me tell you this before I go. A person recently did the math and added up the deer license sales in just a few states and arrived at a striking conclusion: There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin... Again 600,000 HUNTERS! Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the 8th largest army in the world. (That's more men under arms then Iran. More then France and Germany COMBINED) These men, deployed to the wood of a single states, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms and NO ONE WAS KILLED. That number pales in comparison to 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, All of whom returned home safely! Toss in a quarter million hunters in west Virgina and it establishes the fact that hunters in those 4 state compose the largest army in the world! And then add inn the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's million's more. You know what the Point is? The point is that America will be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Guns aren't just for hunting, it's a matter of national security, which is why all enemies of America, Both foreign and domestic, want to see every American disarmed!
Just food for thought, the next time you consider gun control whether you agree with it not. So overall, even if we disregard the assumption that hunters don't posses the same skills as soldiers, what army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or even 50 million armed citizens!
Debate Round No. 3


C1) Suicides
Con replies to this argument by showing that banning guns will not stop all suicides, and that people will still commit suicide through other methods. I agree, but I never argued that banning guns would stop all suicides forever. I argued that banning guns would greatly deter this, which is a huge impact that Con fails to negate.

When people are forced to use a different method of suicide, they are less likely to be successful (because, as I have shown, suicide by firearm is the most successful), and thus the person is more likely to survive. After this, they are subjected to depression treatment, which fixes their problem 80-90% of the time [1]. Con has also dropped the fact that having a gun in the home increases their chances of committing suicide. In the end, banning guns saves lives.

Con then says that America is tenth in the world in the number of suicides, and that suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in America. This does not change the fact that banning guns would save lives, and thus does not negate my argument, and has no impact.

C2) Homicides
Con claims that banning guns would increase crime rates. Con backs this up by saying that in Germany and England, the crime rate for rape, break-ins, and burglaries are higher than in America.

1) This claim goes unsourced, unwarranted, and therefore can be thrown out as my case in this contention goes warranted, I win the argument on logical analysis.

2) My contention titled homicides is about homicides. Rape, break ins and burglaries are not homicides, and thus do not negate the argument.

3) This could be the result of thousands of factors, and not the presence of firearms, Con needs to show that guns are the direct cause of this, remember correlation doesn't equal causation. The statistic could be the result of how much law enforcement gets payed, the effectiveness of law enforcement, education level, state culture, population density, urbanization degree, religious characteristics, policies of the criminal justice system, youth concentration, modes of transportation, poverty levels, environment, organized crime, tourism, job availability, etc.

Con also says that famous people have body-guards that need guns to protect their boss. The problem is that Con ignores the other non-lethal weapons that body guards can use to protect their boss, such as tasers, clubs, pepper spray, etc. These are far less dangerous than using a gun, and are just as effective.

Con then gives a lot of examples of times when governments attacked people without guns and killed them. Con then says that if they would have had guns, they wouldn"t have died. If anything, more people would have died. The victims would have had no chance against the military might of the country, and would have just died fighting instead of executed. And, the soldiers of the governments lose their lives, which is more lives lost on top of those already executed. This argument also assumes that the people executed would have guns, which would cost a great deal of money, and are unlikely to have.

My rebuttal of Con"s revolution against a tyrannical government negates this as well.

Con then says that if guns were banned, criminals would just make homemade guns, or they would use other weapons such as knives, bows, crossbows, spears, and others.

If the criminal were to make a homemade gun, I doubt that it will be as dangerous as one made by a company. It will be less accurate, powerful, and dangerous in general. Even if we accept Con"s notion that if we ban guns, criminals will make homemade ones, it will still reduce the criminal"s effectiveness, and I win the argument.

Also, if banning guns would force criminals to use other weapons, as Con admits, then this will reduce crime as well. Spears, crossbows, knives, and bows are not nearly as effective as a gun. Thus, forcing them to use less effective weapons makes criminals less effective, reducing crime.

C3) Accidents
Con says that accidents happen because people don"t know how to use them. What the judge needs to notice is that Con conceded that firearms cause accidents.

What Con does do is suggest more gun safety classes. The problem with this is that research has shown that gun training increases accidents.

"Many gun owners report storing their guns loaded and unlocked. Gun training is often associated with an increased likelihood of storing firearms in this manner." And that, "Some 400 parents with firearms in the home responded to questions about firearms storage. Over 20% of parents had a loaded firearm and 8% stored at least one firearm loaded and unlocked. Households with teenagers were somewhat more likely to store firearms unsafely." [2]

As the evidence shows, training does not stop accidents from occurring, they actually increase them.

Con fails to prove that gun accidents won"t happen. Thus banning guns would still prevent accident deaths, and the impact stands.



As per rules state at the beginning, and as I went first, I shall waive this round so Hayde and I have equal amount of debate rounds. Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by tejretics 6 months ago
== Part 1 ==

Con's whole case hinges on the assertion that the Founding Fathers supported it. I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with the debate at hand. Arguments should have a clear link and a clear impact. Without any of the two, I cannot gauge any offense from the argument. Structure your arguments briefly with a "claim," "warrant" and "impact." First, make the claim, with a clear link to the resolution (e.g. "a ban on firearms is unconstitutional, and infringing on the constitution is bad"). Second, justify all the claims: (1) a ban on guns is unconstitutional (read: Second Amendment rights, explicit allowance), and (2) changing the constitution is harmful because [x], [y] and [z]. Third, explain the impact of that argument (e.g. if the constitution is changed in such a massive way, it will cause major armed revolt and the deaths of hundreds). To this impact, add probability (the likelihood of the impact) and magnitude (the level of impact). Con's case completely fails to do any of this, so I can't buy it. Anyhow, Pro completely tears this down. Pro shows that the idea of "resistance from tyranny" due to guns is absurd, and that every single link of Con's is a complete bare assertion. There's literally no grounds to buy such an absurd assertion.

Pro argues that gun-related deaths in America are huge. He has three links that he explains are root causes of such deaths: suicides, accidents and homicides. He explains that the suicide rate would significantly reduce since it would become hard to procure guns under a ban. He shows the number of gun based accidents, and demonstrates that among the common people at least, deaths would reduce since they aren't going to procure guns via the black market.
Posted by tejretics 6 months ago
== Part 2 ==

Finally, Pro details the reductions in the homicide rate as well. Con's objections to Pro's case aren't compelling. Con has under-explained warrants to all of their responses and doesn't significantly attack Pro's case at all. Con responds to the homicide rate argument by saying: (1) it's possible to make homemade guns (which is absurd and under-warranted, and I have no idea how it is statistically the case that criminals will make homemade guns) and (2) other weapons exist. Con doesn't explain how "homemade guns" or "other weapons" would actually be used by criminals -- regardless of whether it's *possible* that they are used. Impacts have to have probability, and there's no such thing justified to any extent by Con. As such, the response Con presents is grossly insufficient.

Con's response to accidents is essentially a concession: "[a]ccidents with firearms are caused because people don't know how to handle them," which is what Pro is also saying. There are people who don't know how to use guns and that's an objective fact as proven by Pro. Con's response essentially concedes the point without even articulating how that forms a sufficient response. Con's only, if slightly, substantial response is the turn with regards to the deterrent effect of guns. But Pro correctly points out the lack of clear empirical research sourced by Con, the lack of warrant that correlation equals causation and the impact of murder versus the impact of "break-ins" and "robberies." Pro's strongest impact (accidents) outweighs any offense Con presents despite Pro's concession of the crime rate statistic (which undermines the homicide impact).

The vote goes Pro.
Posted by Tashasays 9 months ago
In this winner-takes-all debate, I would vote Pro and here is why: Pro's resolution is that the US should ban all firearms. Con argues guns were granted by the founding father because they are necessary for personal protect and protection against a tyrannical government. He also points out several examples of how people without guns were exterminated by their armed government. Pro's rebuttal to this is that there are many safeguards protecting the people from tyranny and that even if the public was armed, they would be no match for the US army. Pro's argument is that without guns, deaths from suicide, homicide, and accident will all go down. Con's rebuttal is that people can still commit suicide, but pro already addressed that other methods are much less successful and often, the person is able to recover. Con argues that crime will go up and sites Germany and England as examples. Pro's rebuttal is that crimes are not homicides and are therefore less important than saving lives. Con states that accidental deaths are gun owner errors, but he argument doesn't change the fact that people are still dying from guns by accident. Con points out that guns have also saved lives in the past, but it is unclear how many lives were really saved. Since the BoP is shared, pro was better able to prove that firearms should be banned. Pro had a wide variety of sources that supported his argument. Con had only 3 sources, 2 of which (NRA news and are clearly biased toward gun owners. The third source had little impact on the argument overall.
Posted by Chrysalism 9 months ago
Before the debate I agreed with Pro, after the debate I still agree with Pro (however con's side was well done as well). My reason's for this decision on deciding with Pro after the debate is:

1: More convincing arguments: Pro successfully makes and defends his arguments about decreased suicide rates, an increase in suicide survival rate, in decrease in homicides as firearms are the most commonly used weapon and a decrease in accidents. These points are then backed up by legitimize sources and in round four are successfully defended against Con. As for Con's arguments he argues that not banning firearms would protect the nation against a corrupt government, against invading countries, crooks and angry ex's (round three) These are backed up with legitimate sources. These arguments are refuted by Pro on the grounds that there are others thing in place to protect us from the government and by invading forces and that correlation does not equal (round 4) . The overarching argument made by pro "My case will focus on the amount of deaths that the existence of firearms causes in America, and thus to save these lives, firearms should be banned. Since the value of lives outweigh all other factors (e.g. cost, culture, etc.), the outcome of this debate relies heavily on Con"s ability to refute the following contentions.
" Con did not show that keeping firearms would lower death rates. Argument goes to Pro however both arguments were very well done.

2. Sources: On both sides points were backed up with credible sources, this amounts to a tie.

3. Grammar and spelling: Both were negligible (however Con made a few grammatical and spelling errors), this amounts to a tie.

4. Both Pro and Con followed the rules outlined and were respectful, this amounts to a tie.

More persuasive arguments goes to Pro, the rest is a tie. This is why I stayed with Pro.
Posted by Tashasays 9 months ago
If I could vote on this, I would say Pro won. Both sides made really compelling arguments. Both sides were thorough, well organized, and respectful. It was an enjoyable debate. I was really surprised that both sides were able to find sources that supported contradicting claims. The main reason I feel pro won is because the sources con used to refute pro's sources were clearly biased.
Posted by TranquilSpirit 9 months ago
Before the debate, I agreed with Con. Upon reading the debate, I still agree with Con.

For conduct, both were respectful. However, in the rules states in Round 1, it was required that a full citation be given for any source used. Though Con never gave a full citation throughout the argument, in Round 4 of Pro's final argument, they didn't give a full citation either. As a result, I vote tie.

For spelling and grammar I would vote Pro. I couldn't find any spelling or grammatical errors in Pro's argument. In Round 1, Con stated "When Thomas Jefferson and John Addams were drafting the Articles of Confederation, then later, Constitution, They made sure to give U.S citizens the right to bear arms." Addams should only have one "d." Also Con capitalized the "t" in they after Constitution. In Round 2 Con states, "Over in developed country like Germany and England, The crime rate for rape, break ins, and burglaries are actually HIGHER then in America!" Country, should actually be countries. The "t" in the shouldn't be capitalized either.

As for convincing argument, I would vote Pro. Both gave definitive arguments for their side of the debate. Throughout the entire debate, both sides touched equally on suicide, homicide, accidental injury/fatality, and prevention of crime and the benefits and downfalls of guns in each situation. However, Pro clearly shows that regardless of situation, a firearm ban would prevent death whether purposeful or accidental.

As for most reliable source used, I would vote a tie. Both used many sources throughout the debate and each were credible.

For this debate, there is only one vote possible "Who do you believe won the debate?" However I used a standard voting format for this comment. But in consideration of the special vote, putting my opinion aside, I would say that Pro won the debate. Through information provided, a full ban would insure the utmost safety for America, and its citizens.
Posted by Niall_McGee27 9 months ago
Firearms shouldn't be banned at all. To put in the words of hitter, the best way to take over a nation is to first disarm its citizens.
Posted by raskuseal 9 months ago
Ok. Wasn't exactly sure if the first round was just for inductory on our sides of the debates and the rest were proving them. I got it now.
Posted by Hayd 9 months ago
Just a heads up, your next round should be rebuttals, not expanding on your case
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 9 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: