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

The USA should abolish all firearms

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: 6/28/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 274 times Debate No: 116092
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I hope that my opponent and I adopt a civilised and reasoned debate.


1) A forfeit is an automatic loss
2) No ad hominem attacks or slander
3) Use civil and formal language

I would advise my opponent to start by just accepting the debate and then I will provide my arguments for the motion. After this, my opponent can respond and put forward their arguments.

Criteria for winning:

Burden of proof that not banning guns is bad. Use of logical arguments is the absolute priority and further evidence followed by analysis adds more weight to the argument.

Good luck to my opponent. I really hope that the audience enjoys this debate.


Okay, let us start with why the 2nd amendment exists. It was made to make sure that the Citizenry will be able to keep control in the event that a Tyrannical Government came into power either through a coup d'etat of the "state" or foreign invasion. In an expanded interpretation this can include defence of private property such as fending off a robbery.

Here's the problem and this will serve as my argument for this round. According to FBI, more people are called with blunt objects and human hands than by Guns. Should we abolish blunt objections, how about hand to hand combat? If there are things that contribute to mass scale deaths such as smoking, drunk driving and let smoking isn't illegal, cars aren't illegal and why because as with everything that is illegal, the black market will take over and going forward you'll end up with an internal war with gangs and other black market members. Also what about Police officers and Law abiding citizens? Should we disarm police? How will we keep order? Also, why should I a law abiding citizen lose my gun rights? You see basically the argument is this.

P1. The issue of shooting crime is not enrooted in Guns

P2. Gun Control will make the situation worse

Com. Therefore Guns should not be abolished.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you very much for accepting the challenge primeministerJoshua812 and for making your opening remarks. I will attempt to weave in some of my direct response to your first arguments within my arguments in order to engage with you points and bring in some new content.

Before I get into my arguments I would like to clarify my stance. I am for the banning of all guns from citizens unless they have a very good reason to own a gun (e.g. a farmer). Even then, they must face heavy background checks and mental health checks as well as being interviewed as to their motive for owning the firearm. However, I am not for the disarmament of the police. This is an individual choice for the government and parliaments of the USA. In many situations, police rightly need guns in order to keep the peace and protect people - this is fair reason for possession and I do not dispute that. However, in all other cases I am for the banning of such weapons.

My first argument is really just a rebuttal to a commonly used pro-gun argument. I am therefore challenging the idea that, because the second amendment says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." this means that gun possession is a right and therefore must never end. It is so important that the second amendment is put into context. There have been 8 amendments to the American Constitution. The second amendment was made on December 15th 1791 (226 years ago). This was 8 years before the American revolutionary war with Britain in which British and Loyalist troops invaded the US and were undoubtedly, to some extent, tyrannical. As we can see, there is a legitimate historical context to the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment is not a fair reflection on the current context. Let's be clear, the last time the US mainland was invaded and occupied by "tyrannical" powers was during the war of 1812 (206 years ago). The USA has largest military expenditure in the world, countless numbers of very powerful, free and democratic allies, has its sovereignty upheld by the UN and is without doubt the most powerful and well-defended country in the entire world. The USA faces absolutely no serious existential threat that could lead to the end of the "free State". Therefore, in this way, guns are not needed. The USA is also one of the most democratically free country in the world. Its constitution has huge constraints on governmental power including 2 houses which are regularly elected and a supreme court. Furthermore, the USA has never had any government which has tried to greatly limit the freedoms of its citizens (even FDR was massively held back by the Senate and Supreme court). The USA has no threat of becoming a non-free state. Therefore, guns are not needed to protect the citizenry from tyrannical power.

My second argument is simply that guns lead to more deaths and that this is therefore bad enough to limit the privileges of some Americans to carry guns. The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women).
There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 270,237 suicides (58.2% of total deaths); 174,773 homicides (37.7%); and 9,983 unintentional deaths (2.2%). (1) Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides


This is hardly a surprising correlation. Furthermore, there is a logical explanation which explains a reasonable causation hypothesis. Guns are extremely dangerous and there are very little restrictions on the type of guns that may be carried. Guns allow people to kill others at a much faster rate. That is why in the event of a mass shooting many more people die than in the event of a mass stabbing. Of course, ultimately people are the ones that actually kill others but we can't ban people. However, the reality is that guns allow people to kill many more people more quickly. Therefore, many more people die as a result of the right to bear arms. Now, as a matter of fact, things like blunt objects are used to kill people. So do things like knives; that's why in many european countries there are restrictions on buying dangerous objects. We clearly can't abolish things like blunt objects - one would have to abolish so many things that our lives would become very impractical. Cars too could be abolished but again cars are so important to our daily lives that banning them is too detrimental and unreasonable. However, guns are not needed by Americans. Furthermore, whereas cars and blunt tools both have practical purposes, the only purpose of a gun is to kill. Banning guns is not contradictory. It is workable and makes sense; unlike banning other necessary tools guns are not essential to our daily lives and thus can be abolished if they cause sufficient harm - which they do.

The next argument I have is effectively challenging the idea that this monolithic "black market" is going to sweep in a take ever everything, making it worse. Of course there will be a black market in guns. However, since the government would make it so hard to obtain a gun overall average citizens will be unable to access a gun and therefore fewer guns will end up in the hands of unstable or irresponsible people. It is also true that some really serious criminals will still be able to obtain guns. However, the extent to which this happens is exaggerated. Most criminals in countries without guns are unable to get guns and thus have to resort to things like knives, which are unsurprisingly less deadly and end up killing fewer people - which is good. Very few criminals will have access to guns. In these few cases armed police can deal with these criminals. The idea that armed civilians will be able to fight off criminals and cause less damage is completely nonsensical. Considering most Americans are unable to use such weapons with accuracy and that you are more likely to kill a member of your own family than an armed criminal with a firearm, the idea that if people have guns they will mitigate human suffering, is completely untrue. Furthermore, even if there are cases in which a civilian with a gun may be able to defend themselves and their family against an a dangerous thug, I am still prepared to err on the side of gun control. This is because when weighing this up with the reality that when everyone can have a firearm many people die, it is clear that although sometimes it may work more people would die overall.

In conclusion, the 2nd amendment is a contextual and outdated privilege which does not reflect the needs of the 21st century. Furthermore, firearm possession has an obvious link with gun related deaths and mass murder. Also abolishing the 2nd amendment is reasonable since firearms are unnecessary unlike essential tools like kitchen knives. Finally, the possibility of an admittedly minor black market is unfortunate but allowable since overall less people would have access to killing-machines and in genuine combat situations civilian self-defence is very risky and damaging and a properly funded police force with a tough justice system can do a much better job at dealing with violent gun-carrying gangs (which in most cases target other gangs and not ordinary civilians they have no connection to).

In 2016, 64% of homicides were gun-related (according to the FBI homicide index). It's plain to see that banning guns from civilians, unless they have a very good reason for having a gun, will reduce this death toll. Maybe, one day, American kids could go to school feeling safe in the knowledge that school shootings were a thing of the past. However, with the NRA spending $3.2 million on lobbying in 2017 this seems, tragically, unlikely.

Change America for the better. Vote Pro


Okay, should people who don't have good reasons for a gun not get a gun? Also, who gets to decide what is a good reason? Rationality is subject. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say rationality mus survive under scrutiny. Also, let me give you an example. Imagine that I am a Government employee who works in the department/agency dealing with gun laws. Imagine you are that farmer who has to deal with armed gangs attacking your property. Now imagine that the attacks happened but in my judgment, I decided that there was no attack even if you gave me empirical evidence of the attacks and because of that I refuse to give you a gun. What happens then?

On to the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether or not the US could be invaded or whether the Government could become dictatorial. The right is there and it must be upheld. The Constitution is a "living tree" document what's in it must be upheld. There is a reason why amendments were given to give rights to women and ethnic minorities because of the strict line to line interpretation. Also, abolish guns would not help in the defence of the United States especially as the geopolitical situation becomes tenser. Also, a dictatorial government could rise if one cannot out due to courts and subdue Congress perhaps doing what Hitler did which is have the army point guns at congress members and have them pass a law "enabling act" that will give the President dictatorial powers. The unarmed populace would have to come to terms with the new government. Guns are needed for security in the United States not just from a national threat but for personal safety. For example, African Americans who kept KKK members from going into their homes and lynching them.

Okay, so the fact that you bring up suicides and unintentional deaths shows that guns are not the issue. The issue is much deeper than that. Cultural issues, mental illness, lack of education, clumsiness etc. Not a reason to Ban Guns. Guns carry a practical matter. They are a way of protection, fun and responsibility. The responsibility which of exercised property can help develop a person to be a more responsible and contributing citizen. Banning guns is not workable and it does not make sense. I believe that those who want to ban guns are to narrow minded on the topic. A good guy with a gun could prevent a bad guy with a gun from committing an act. Cars are not needed. You can walk and if not take public transport. Fly in a plane or a helicopter, ride a horse or something. Do you see where this is going? Blunt objects and cars combined to much more damage than guns in the United States. Why target a minority and not the majority?

I don't you understand how a black market works. The US spends billions nearly a trillion dollars on the war on drugs was it successful? If people want guns for business or crime. No Law or Tax ill stop the determined and when you unarm the law abiding citizens but you can't stop the baddies than you create a bigger problem than that of which existed before.

Once again Constitutional rights must be upheld. Also, an unarmed law abiding populace will fall victim to an armed non-law-abiding populace which could eventually seize power through a coup d etat. Armed officials in schools would be better than banning guns. Once again Deterministic criminals will get by if they have to face little to no resistance.
Debate Round No. 2


Before I respond to your arguments, I would like to clear up any misconceptions over how new legislation would work. This new legislation is not as simple as one individual deciding whether someone has a good reason to own a gun. There are multiple checks and balances which would be used in order to determine a reasonable case for gun ownership. This system exists and works successfully in many European countries where certain individuals can own guns. My proposal could easily be enacted and would be functional.

Now I really want to focus on the concept of the 2nd amendment itself. Saying that the 2nd amendment "must be upheld" without an explanation as to why is completely irrational. As I explained, the 2nd amendment had a historical context of immense political instability however it is not relevant for modern society. I also described that the constitution is not sacre-saint. The constitution is not like the 10 commandments. It has been amended so many times. In fact, even amendments to it have been repealed like the 18th amendment. If there is no relevancy to the 2nd amendment then it makes no sense to preserve it. I need an explanation as to why the 2nd amendment is needed in today's context not just a catchy sound-bite of "it's my right". To my mind (and to many other progressive Americans), the 2nd amendment is more of a privilege than a right.

Next, although to an extent, the world seems to be becoming more at risk of war, this is a complete exaggeration. Arguably, all countries are subject to this threat just like the USA. However, most other countries use their armed forces and not their civilians to defend the country in the enormous unlikelihood of an attack on their soil. The reality is that the USA is not going to be invaded and even if it was armed civilians are not going to be able to hold off an invasion. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely, considering the nature of the American system, that a dictator will seize power. What is more likely is that hundreds of kids will die in school shootings in the years to come. Also, how on earth would civilians stop a dictator? Do civilians have tanks? Do civilians have artillery, warships, chemical weapons, fighter aircraft or nuclear weapons? I find the idea that a armed militia of American civilians with rifles could hold off the US armed forces. I do find it likely though that those same weapons could kill thousands of innocent people every year. If people want personal safety they should call the police. Furthermore, they will not need guns anyway since the attackers would not be able to get guns in the first place. In the unlikelihood that someone attacks them with a gun (which in all other countries is very unlikely), most people run away even if they are armed. Gun attacks are terrifying and most people do not fight back. This was certainly true in the case of the recent shooting in Florida.

The next big point that needs to be tackled is the idea that guns are not what is causing gun deaths. Guns are directly responsible for the deaths of many more people as they are efficient killing machines. Compared to things like blunt objects guns kill far more people at a faster rate. On that basis, it makes sense to ban something which results in killing many more people. Furthermore, as I have already described in great length, blunt objects and cars have so many practical uses. Whereas, guns provide little practical use and thus when you consider the harm that they do to our society it makes sense to ban something which doesn't have enough usefulness to justify its existence. Now, of course evil people are the true cause of murders due to gun violence and of course mental health is the main cause. However, fighting these problems, although definitely a noble and good thing to do, does not go far enough to stop killings. If the US government could cure all mentally ill people of their problems and effectively deal with all people with bad intentions then I would absolutely advocate for the right of all Americans to own guns since there would be no dangerous people to use them. However, this is a totally unachievable goal. You cannot cure all evil people - this is an impossible goal. Thus, alternative ways need to be considered in order to stop the slaughter of so many innocent Americans. Guns undeniably cause more deaths because of guns and this is totally supported by the evidence which I cited in my previous response. Therefore, banning guns is the way to achieve our goal of making America a safer and less murderous country. Since, as I have explained, guns serve little value to ordinary people and they are actually rarely used to fight crime, banning them is reasonable as they are so unnecessary. This is not the same for cars. If cars were banned (of course people could walk) our economy would massively suffer and our lives would become much more impractical and difficult therefore, they are essential to our daily lives and so depriving us of such important things is a step too far. Although, maybe one day, if public transport is good enough and considering the damage to the environment that cars do, cars could rightly be abolished.

Now onto the black market. To equate an underground gun market to an illegal drugs market is to make an extremely disingenuous argument. There are huge distinctions which need to be made. Firstly, drugs are highly addictive whereas there are no addictions to shooting guns. Therefore, in the event of abolishing guns, one would not find millions of gun-addicts rushing to their local dealer to purchase 1kg of ammunition to feed their habit. It is simply not the same situation. To justify my claim that the black market will be minute, I will provide you some examples of countries who have a model of gun control that I would advocate for the USA. In the UK, you are banned from buying any firearms unless, as I have advocated, you have a very good reason for owning it (i.e. for your job such as a livestock farmer or a vet). In the UK, there is a black market for guns. However, most gangs are not powerful enough to obtain firearms and so instead use knives and other weapons (unsurprisingly they end up killing fewer people with these less deadly weapons). Some very dangerous gangs do have access to these weapons and carry handguns and sometimes semi-automatic rifles. The gun homicide rate in England and Wales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.After a mass shooting at a school in 1996, the British government pursued legislative bans on assault rifles and handguns and tightened background checks for other types of firearms. As of 2013, a total of 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition were taken off British streets. Military-style weapons and most handguns were banned. Moreover, the black market is very small. There are so many examples of this from around the world. What is the same everywhere is that when guns are banned, there are (shockingly) less guns - which (amazingly) leads to fewer people dying. The idea of a huge black market being worse than the status quo is completely false and has absolutely no statistical based evidence for it. Trust in the countless evidence from all around the world that a black market would exist but most importantly it would be very, very small. Crucially, the black market would be unfortunate but allowable since the level of gun violence now is so much worse.

So, to conclude: the 2nd amendment is not untouchable - it is a fallible and repealable right which, considering its irrelevance in today's society, can be and should be repealed and replaced with new and reasonable legislation. Our rights do not come from nowhere - they have logical reasons for their existence and thus, if those arguments no longer stack up, those "rights" (or should we really say privileges) can and should be removed. Secondly, guns allow evil and ill people to kill people in much faster and more devastating ways and thus are unique in their wholly violent use. Guns are furthermore not essential to our human existence. I would ban cars if you could argue that cars are so useless (like guns) that there is a good reason to ban them; but cars have massive practical uses. This is not a contradiction. Therefore, banning guns does reduce gun deaths and is reasonable. Finally, a black market in guns would exist but it would be small according to all the evidence that we can see from other countries. Most normal gun users would not be able to get guns and thus only very serious groups would have guns. But guess what; serious criminals already have guns so, what is the difference? Overall less people will have guns and thus less people will die.

I only have to convince you of 2 things:

1) Guns do not serve a purpose, significant enough, to warrant their existence when they conflict with the right of our people to live in a safe society.

2) When we ban guns less people will die

I believe I have sufficiently explained and justified both of these premises. I have, thus, a strong inductive argument for banning these useless murder-machines. At the end of the day, I do not have a problem with a responsible and good American owning a gun. But when the privilege of that individual to own a gun for their own needs conflicts with the lives of children, heartbreakingly murdered in places which should be considered safe, I am absolutely unapologetic for my firm belief that I am willing to infringe upon the right of that person to save the right of many other people to their own lives.

I don't want to see a country, so amazing and great in so many ways, being the same country in which almost every year we wake up to another story of a preventable mass shooting. I don't want anyone to have to wake up to that anymore. I want change.

I dearly hope I can convince at least one person of this.


Once again is the purpose of the legislation necessary. The answer is no. In a capitalist society, one should be able to buy products that may be considered taboo. The state hurts the nation through unnecessary intervention in the economy. It doesn't matter about the checks and balances rationality is still subjective. Please name the European countries in which your law is enacted.

The constitution must be upheld because it is the law. America like Canada and Australia is governed by the rule of law and so if people have the right to bear arms which are sanctioned by law than that MUST be protected. America is still unstable so the historical context does not work. It has been amended but you have not given a good reason why it should be amended again. Also, I defended why a living tree interpretation of the constitution does not work and is invalid. The high crime rates and instability in the domestic and international geopolitical arena make the 2nd amendment relevant.

If one bans guns than they must disarm the military and police as well if you are not for this. Then your motion: The USA should abolish all firearms is a flawed and not well-written motion. The geopolitical situation goes against the idea of disarmament. I give an example of how someone could seize total power in America and it is not that likely. Also if no good person is armed than the criminals from the black market will continue to attack schools and cause trouble and nobody will be able to keep peace, order and good government ruining the American dream. On the militia. How do you think every other country that has had a successful rebellion take down the government? An armed populace engaging in small attacks in order to weaken and slow down a much larger force. Why call the police? What if the police don' get there in time. What if you can't call the police. What can the police do with guns that you can't? Also once again you lean into the fantasy that in a no gun America criminals who are already breaking the law wouldn't get guns from the black market. People who are unarmed don't fight back. None of the teachers or student in Florida were armed so...

Okay, so I addressed this before. However, I will reaffirm. Guns have practical uses and I gave those uses. Banning Guns would help with anything. If the issue is mental health can what not then the Government should focus its attention on that and not guns. The material is not to blame the illness of the mind and heart is. Guns also play a role in the economy just remember.

If I want to shoot up a bank or a school and the Government won't sell me but I really want to commit a crime than I will find a way and the black market is the key. For Britain. Your facts are true but here is the thing. The British Government puts more efforts into mental illness fighting and what than the United States so it isn't all the gun law changes that are dealing with crime. Also, Guns aren't "abolished in the UK". So an attack could still happen just as much as in the US. Also, what is an assault rifle?

My Conclusion is simple. Constitutional rights must be upheld no matter what. You have to repeal the 2nd amendment if want to end so call Gun privileges. Banning Guns do not reduce death they increase crime and lawlessness. Guns have practical uses like cars and the black market is still a problem. You have not convinced me of your 2 premises and thus I dismiss the motion in question as nonsense.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for your response. I have realised that there are some important misunderstandings in this debate that need to be cleared up. I realise that the motion title itself is quite ambiguous. As the proponent in this debate is my job to define and set up the meaning of the policy that I intend to put forward. This motion is obviously about the abolition of the 2nd amendment. In order to abolish all firearms (to civilians) I would abolish the 2nd amendment. Therefore, I would no longer be breaking the law by removing guns from all people without good reason. Police, emergency services and armed forces would all still obviously have access to firearms. However, all civilians without a legitimate reason for firearms would have their firearms removed. The legality of the motion would be ensured by democratically repealing the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment is outdated and unnecessary and considering the sheer mass of murder caused by the lack of gun control it should be removed. The USA is a very stable country. It has a concrete democracy with absolutely no history of dictatorship or tyranny. Furthermore, surely the arming of civilians makes it equally likely for a rebellion to form which could overthrow a democratic government and impose tyranny? The 2nd amendment works both ways. I argue that both sides are ridiculously unlikely and thus it makes sense to get rid of weapons which lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans every year.

Next, I really need to analyse the theory that a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun. The truth is that you are more likely to kill a member of your own family than an armed intruder. Based on this, if Americans really want to protect them and their families, disarming themselves actually makes more sense. Furthermore, most criminals will no longer have access to guns because the black market is actually a really difficult market to gain access to. The reason being is that so few other countries allow guns to be possessed legally and thus it is much harder to deal in guns than in things like drugs (which are much more widely spread and less strictly regulated). Most criminals are not really hard-core criminals and so could not get access to a very inconspicuous and dangerous black market. The truth is that wherever guns are banned there are fewer criminals with guns and thus fewer innocent people die from being shot by criminals. In almost every other country on earth, guns are illegal to possess for ordinary people and as a result fewer criminals have them. The police can keep the peace better than armed civilians who are more likely to kill innocent people. The truth is that gun attacks are really, really scary and in most cases armed "good guys" actually run away (and who could blame them - it's terrifying). For the once in a blue moon occasion that one good guy stops an armed drug cartel, there are thousands of other cases where people like him murder people. It is just not a strong enough possibility to rely on. Finally, I want to point out that many of these mass shooters are often mentally ill. They often do not have criminal records and are not actually criminals before committing the crime. In this way, they couldn't get their guns from a black market. Thus, in the event of banning guns these mass shooters, who are not career criminals, would not be able to get access to firearms and therefore not be able to kill people. So, to an extent, many of these especially horrific mass shootings will almost certainly not happen when guns are banned since they do not fit into the category of career criminals anyway.

In places where guns are banned it is so difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. Therefore, despite the fact that civilians are terrible at using guns to protect themselves and almost always cause more damage, civilians would not even need to be able to defend themselves in the first place as the attackers would not have guns. Hardcore career criminals rarely attack innocent people who they have no connection to but generally attack other criminals who they compete with therefore there is even less of a need for ordinary Americans to protect themselves when the police can do it for them. Moreover, even acknowledging smallest possibility that the police are too late, this still does not matter since the overall damage that is done by the 2nd amendment, in giving the ability for evil people to carry out attacks overweighs the potential for a gun owner to protect themselves on a death toll basis. You seem to have conceded my explanation that wherever there are guns for civilians more people die. So, notwithstanding whatever ways it is possible for a gun to save a life, we know that overall more people die.

Guns do not have reasonable practical uses above the myth that they "save lives". They are used for leisure and are not essential commodities but luxury goods that most people would never expect to have a right to own. As I previously explained, although we should fight to improve the mental health of Americans, making everyone responsible and sane enough to own a gun is completely unachievable. There will always be bad people - no matter how much money the government spends on improving mental health. Thus, there will always be evil and ill people who carry out gun attacks. Some people cannot be cured of criminality. Not every gun murder is due to severe mental health problems. But they all have a connection: they all used guns. Thus if we abolish guns, by scrapping the 2nd amendment, these murders might not happen as they could not get the guns to carry them out. Those few criminals that do can be dealt with by the FBI and police and are in a tiny minority anyway just like in so many other countries. Now, I am not an expert on the level of mental health spending in the UK and USA so I have to plead ignorance on this issue to an extent. But what I can say is that there are still many mentally unfit people in Britain that could commit mass murder if they had guns but since they can't get guns, this is one cause of lower gun deaths. Guns in the UK are banned from all people who don't have a need for them like a professional necessity. It is so hard for people to get a gun in the UK and thus fewer people die of gun deaths. This is the same for Sweden, Japan, Australia and Norway and many others.

Finally, I need to make a brief statement about the economy. I think that in a debate concerning the lives and rights of people the economy has to play second fiddle. I think we need to put the moral arguments first. But anyway, in the event of banning guns, gun manufacturers can still sell and export to other consumers of guns such as the police, armed forces and farmers home and abroad. The gun producers are not the beating heart of the American economy and thus the effect on the overall economy will not be great. Those that lose jobs in gun production could take their manufacturing skills elsewhere and work in other forms of manufacturing. There will be slight damage, but this is recoverable, minimal and not enough to overturn the mountain of skulls created as a result of the 2nd amendment's existence.

To conclude, I have provided a reasonable and workable method of abolishing civilian use of guns. We repeal the second amendment and bring in detailed legislation, interpreted by courts of law, in order to objectively and fairly control who gets a gun. Guns provide little realistic use sufficient to justify their sale to ordinary citizens. Furthermore, they have been proven to be responsible for a high rate of gun murders and because they provide little potential to protect people are undeniably the cause of more murder. The damage to the economy is small and not enough to overturn the moral argument for abolition. The concept of the mythical mega-black market is a complete exaggeration since in almost all other countries this is not the case and most criminals could not obtain illegal firearms. Therefore, abolition is workable and makes sense in order to save people's lives. I would always put the right of people to live above the right of people to own a useless and vile murder-machine.


I'm fine your first paragraph and shall jump to the second. How many people in the United States want a tyrannical dictator? You want to disarm the people that are the main premise of your argument. Let us see what Thomas Jefferson one of the Founding Fathers had to say on the matter. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. I also want to review historical gun control and the terrible results.

Turkey: Gun Control established in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million defenceless Armenians were murdered by the government

China: Gun Control established in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 2o million defenceless political dissidents were murdered by the state

Guatemala: Gun Control established in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenceless Mayan aboriginals were murdered by the state.

Germany: Gun Control established in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 13 million defenceless civilians were murdered by the state

Soviet Union (Russia): Gun Control Established 1929. From 1929 to 1953 nearly 20 million defenceless dissidents were murdered by the state.

Uganda: Gun Control established 1970. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 defenceless Christians were murdered by the sate.

Cambodia: Gun Control established in 1956. 1975 to 1977 defenceless 1 million educated people were murdered by the state.

So I really want to pin down the argument that getting rid of weapons will reduce death and crime. I should've down this in more detail earlier. Now I am going to make the assumption and I think you believe this premise.

P1. The more legally owned guns, the more homicides by gunpoint there will be
P2. P1 is confirmed by statistical data which itself is true
P3. Countries with less legally owned guns, have lower homicides by shootings
P4. Guns should be abolished

Is this argument factual? Let's find out. Even though the United States has more "mass shootings" (A term that has no universal definition) per capita than Norway and Finland. It cannot be denied that more people die on average in the Norway, Finland and Switzerland shootings than in the United States and all these countries have more gun control than America. According to The Corner violent crime has been on the decrease since the 1990s. In fact, some of the worst shootings in American history such as Columbine took place in where? GUN FREE ZONES. Also, some of the shootings such as the San Bernardino were classified as terrorist attacks and gang violence related attacks, not shootings caused by legal gun attainment. So that proves that the issue goes beyond guns. To further back this up studies show that 80% of gun-related homicides were drug-related. Now, what about suicide. Firs the United States does not have an abnormal suicide rate. According to, The US doesn't even make the top 25 suicide rate list. It is also important to note that many of the countries that do make this list such as Japan and South Korea have a very tough gun control laws. Let me expand my statement. When Australia implemented its new Gun Laws. The Suicide rate stayed relatively the same. Now let's talk about using guns for the security of the person using an example. In the United Kingdom which you have correctly stated has tougher gun control than the United States 52% of burglaries happen when the victim is home, unlike the U.S. where the figure is 13%. Ask yourself why is that? In Europe, more rape crimes where the victim was defenceless is on the rise. So what about P1. of what I believe is your argument. Does more legally owned guns mean more homicides. The answer is no. When comparing gun ownership to homicides. The U.S. ranks 28th on the scale. Australia ranks higher than this list. Gun homicides in the United States caused by legal gun holders have dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011. The main gun homicide happens from gangs in nig populated cities like Chicago.

So do you see the problem is not guns. I have addressed all your other points before.
Debate Round No. 4


Before I summarise my case and explain why I have won I need to point out a few glaring problems with what you have just said. I need to start off by saying that I am appalled and disgusted by your use of racist and hateful language. Not only was what you said completely untrue but you used extremely offensive and derogatory language which I am absolutely appalled by. There is absolutely no evidence that black people are innately more violent than other people and to even suggest such an outrageous claim is utterly pathetic and malicious. You seem to be a backward, racist and moreover horrible individual.

In fact, from the parameters set in this debate you should already be disqualified according to my 3rd rule in acceptance of the challenge. I cannot imagine that the audience would want to hear such horrible and vile racism and so I hope that the voters show what they think of you and overwhelmingly vote Pro.

On to the debate. Thomas Jefferson lived in a totally different time to use now. At the time, the existence of the 2nd amendment made sense. People did not engage in mass shootings, big cities did not exist and guns were hard to get (as well as being very un-powerful). A quote is not an explanation.

Next, you engaged in a laughable and ridiculous argument of correlation and causation. Gun control has absolutely nothing to do with mass murder by the state. Did the 2nd amendment ever help slaves liberate themselves from their masters in 19th century America? All of the examples you listed had everything to do with genocidal, evil dictators coming to power and nothing to do with civilians not owning guns. Do you honestly think that most: Chinese, Russian , German Ugandan, Cambodian, Guatemalan or Turkish civilians could gain access to a gun in those situations? They could not have defended themselves in either situation. This has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. I am amazed that you would have the cheek to bring up such a ridiculous argument. And its not even an argument. You didn't even provide an explanation for it. You just listed examples which prove absolutely nothing. Interestingly enough, the ability of many Russian farmers to have firearms allowed them to massacre lots of Jews under the Tsarist regime. I have proven statistically that wherever there is gun control there are fewer deaths as a result of gun violence. Death due to other reasons such as a murderous dictatorship is a separate matter. Civilians with rights to guns never overthrow dictatorships. Have you considered that dictatorships exist because the populace supports them? Stalin and Hitler were very popular with the people.

Now, you have clearly dropped the economic argument so that has been proven to be a complete fallacy. You have also dropped the black market argument since that has also been shown to be a fallacy as well. As for your practical uses of guns argument, that has clearly been dropped to as it is also a total myth.

The last standing argument you have is simply to deny the statistics. Let's actually look at the statistics because you actually made claims which are untrue. Finland has 4.5 firearm homicides per million people whereas the USA has 29.7 firearm homicides per 1 million. Norway has 1 tenth of the rate of gun deaths per 100 000 of that of the USA. Your claims are quite frankly lies. Violent crime may be on the decrease but gun crime is still at a massive rate in the US compared to pretty much every other country. This decrease has everything to do with other factors and not gun possession. The second amendment has existed since 1791 so why has the decrease only happened now? Your suggestion is completely ridiculous. Also the single example of Colombine is not good enough to prove your point. Plus, guns can be transported in very easily since they are legal everywhere else in the USA. Of course, 80% of gun crimes are drug related but so what? If they had been drug related knife crimes do you think so many people would have died? The motivation does not matter. What matters is the level of violence which happens as a result of the power of the weapon. The reason that the suicide rate in the US is so high compared to other high-income countries is because people have such an easy way of killing themselves effectively -guns. Remove the guns and there will be less suicides. The burglary statistics are interesting but I wonder how many people die when guns are used? The answer is a whole lot more. There may be a suggestion of a deterrent but the reality is that the UK is a much safer country and the US has far more homicides especially when it comes to guns.

So as you can see, the problem is guns. Guns are effective killing machines which allow murder to be so much easier. 64% of USA homicides were gun killings. This is 4.5% in the UK and 13% in Australia. It is not only factual but logical that more guns causes more gun related killings. The overwhelming evidence shows this to be true. Therefore, guns cause murder and so should be abolished.

Let me explain why I have won. I have shown why the second amendment is outdated and how we could repeal it and remove guns. I have also provided a workable model as to how a gun controlled USA would function. I have also shown how guns cause more gun related murders and allow people to murder more people. I have shown that guns are not necessary to lives of ordinary Americans. I have shown that the Black market will be minuscule and not sufficient to warrant guns for everyone and I have shown that guns are not effectively used to stop crime and murder.

Therefore, with every single one of challenges to my explanation of how the firearms lead to more gun murders having been proven to be either untrue or minor points, my argument that lack of gun control increases gun deaths is still true.

The USA needs to change. Guns do cause more gun deaths. I don't understand how this is so hard to understand. This is a form of denial. The USA has some of the worst crime rates and gun murder rates of any developed country in the world and it is all due to the lack of basic controls on guns.

A good guy with a gun does not stop a bad guy with a gun. More often the good guy with a gun shoots his child in the head instead (that is actually true by the way). In no other country is 36 000 gun deaths a year normal. For this murder and chaos to stop the USA needs to implement my proposal.

Guns are killing machines. They don't protect people - they kill people. Vote Pro.

I'm sure that even a racist nutcase like you can see that guns are utterly murderous


Hi. So I did a word find on my paragraph and I think I see the problem. My final sentence says " The main gun homicide happens from gangs in nig populated cities like Chicago." I made a spelling error. The word nig is supposed big. I put an instead of a B because I was typing really fast and on a laptop, keyboard B is right next to N. I was not racist. Read my profile. I am black.

It doesn't matter what time Jefferson lived in. The quote shows why the amendment was made.

The point was under gun control people have suffered more than they have not If the blacks had been armed than yes, yes they could. Need an example just look at the slave revolts that made Haiti independent from France. Another point was that the right to bear arms was to prevent dictators. Where is the proof the Stalin was popular with the people unlike Hitler he wasn't elected and the conditions in which Hitler came to power are not reflected in the USSR?

No, I didn't drop the arguments from economics, black markets and practical uses. I said that I addressed them. To continue to argue from them with your ignorance would be circular reasoning and a waste of my time.

Okay so on to your last standing argument nonsense. Can you give me your links to your sources I can't seem to find the data that confirms you stats? According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes International Homicide Statistics database the US between 1995 and 2015 has seen a continually drop in intentional homicides and is below the world average. Here is the link to my the data In the United States. according to Politifact Mass shooting Fatalities per 100000 people are 0.15 while for Switzerland it is 0.17, Norway is 1.30 and Finland is 0.34. So no my data is not incorrect. This decrease has to do with both Gun possession and other factors. I am not sure of a decrease since 1791. I haven't looked into that data and I doubt that such data even exists. Need more examples? Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook. Need more examples? Do you get the correlation? Most school shootings, in fact, most homicides happen to unarmed defenceless populations and Thomas Jefferson saw that. No, the Suicide and gang homicide rates are because of issues beyond the gun. Such as bullying, Family violence, poverty etc. These are the issues that need to be addressed. The safety of countries such as the UK is subjective. The UK particularly London doesn't really seem to be safe. I argued how more legal gun ownership reduces crime rates. Check my sources and arguments Your remove the guns idea shows that you are ignorant of the facts. Gun Control doesn't work as you think it does and I gave the reasons why. Any sensible person who respects the facts would VOTE AGAINST this motion.

For the Voters:

My opponent is wrong in facts. My opponent fails to realize that the issue of Guns is beyond the Guns. That the second amendment must be upheld and that it is still reliable today. My opponent has ignored the data. Hasn't provided sources to back up their claims contrary to me. My opponent engages in ad hoc attacks due to a spelling error I have made. My opponent fails to realize that the US is not abnormal in gun deaths unlike what CNN and other media like Vox would like you to know. My opponent has not refuted my arguments such as how increased Legal Gun ownership lowers crime rates and so on. My opponent is ignorant on gun control issues and needs correction.

In full summary. The US does not have an abnormal homicide problem. Gun issues are common in places where guns are prohibited. Guns are a civil right. Guns serve a practical purpose. The issues of gangs and suicide are so much deeper than guns themselves. The US does not reach the top 27 list on homicide rates while other developed countries like Japan are. Crime is down in America. In Europe, it is on the rise. In Mass shootings whatever definition you have. The Countries with higher Gun control such as Norway and Finland have higher fatalities. Also, some shootings are actually not shootings but other crimes such as terrorism.

Gun control does not work as well as people think it does. The main people pushing it are uneducated on this subject. People such as Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg.

Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 1 week ago
Yes. I forgive you.
Posted by LoveRichardDawkins 1 week ago
Apologies for accusing you of racism. I"m sure you can see from the typo why I thought that
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 week 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:03