The Instigator
The-patriot
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JUSTHERE2WIN
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Will banning guns decrease gun violence?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,005 times Debate No: 30442
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

The-patriot

Con

No banning guns will not stop gun violence, then only thing it will do is increase the gun violence. If you take away guns the only people who will end up with these weapons are the people who smuggled them. So the law abiding people of america will be unarmed to face the non law abiding citizens. Hitler took away guns, Stalin took away guns... Russia is totally communist and their people have no rights, and Germany is practically 2 countries...
JUSTHERE2WIN

Pro

The facts are that 88 out of every 100 U.S. citizens own guns and 30,000 people die each year from fire arms. While in other countries like Great Britan where guns are banned there are about 11 deaths a year due to fire arms I think its safe to say banning guns would make a difference.
Debate Round No. 1
The-patriot

Con

Thank you for excepting this debate. this is from a person from Britain himself...he wrote this article And while your reading i ask one thing, put in your mind away the felling you have for this and open your mind to this suggestion.

Britain"s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa " widely considered one of the world"s most dangerous countries.

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party"s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million " or more than two every minute.

According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000.

The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France"s, at 504; Finland"s, at 738; Sweden"s, at 1123; and Canada"s at 935.

As a result of both the different ways in which these statistics are collected and of varying definitions of "violent crime," there will naturally be some discrepancies between countries. Enough to account for a 5:1 difference between Britain and the United States, though? I rather think not. As I observed last year when covering the London riots:

When I moved from England to New York, I was frequently advised to "be careful." "Dodge the bullets," said one particularly paranoid friend. I did not have the heart to say that I would likely be much safer in Gotham than the place I was leaving behind.
JUSTHERE2WIN

Pro

I think you overlooked a major America is about 5 times bigger than your mother country (no disrespect) so those numbers about violence per every 100,000 give people the idea that Britain is some crazed violent nation when in fact that is not true. And if you want to argue about how much crime America has look at this site. It will tell you overall Americans have many more crimes than Britain and any other country. http://www.nationmaster.com... And also your facts are plainwrong according to the FBI the U.S. has from 2,121 to 3,370 crimes per 100,000 people in 2011. While Britan has 8,872 total in 2012 and falling accordin to the graph on http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
The-patriot

Con

The-patriot forfeited this round.
JUSTHERE2WIN

Pro

Well that was rather dissapointing
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.