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

Would a complete ban of arms in the U.S. be worth saving one life?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,025 times Debate No: 29834
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




1) Round one is for acceptance and for stating your position.
2) No profanity
3) No trolling

Arms: weapons, especially firearms.

Second Amendment: an amendment to the U.S. constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms as necessary to maintain a state militia.


If the whole topic of banning arms in America was looked at you would see that certain types of weapons are available to military officials and former government officers. The reason for the gun ban is to keep military guns out of the hands of citizens.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate. I will start by make a slight correction to your first statement.
You said "The reason for the gun ban is to keep military guns out of the hands of citizens."

First of all, gun stores do not sell military grade weapons. They do however sell assault rifles. These rifles are not made for the military, but for home defense, target shooting, etc. It is not legal for a civilian to own a military grade weapon right now, so why would government be trying to keep military guns out of the hands of other civilians by banning assault rifles?

I have strayed from the debate to reply to your statement, I will get back on track.

By accepting this debate, my opponent has told me that banning guns entirely is worth saving one life. How could I be so cruel as to say it isn't worth saving one life? A few honest men thought that through hardship, a nation could be made free by the will of the people. They accepted the risk that people may die in order to break off from a monarchy
that they believed was evil. Read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." Using this belief, they put forward a Constitution, followed by a bill of rights. These rights were "God given," and could "not be infringed upon by the federal government." A hundred years passed and a movement was formed that today we know as the progressive movement. Where college educated politicians, authors, journalists, etc, decided that some of the freedoms that the American people are guaranteed may not truly be in the best interest of the country. When "The Jungle" was written, the public saw corruption in businesses that were regulated under a laissez-faire system, or that they were left alone by government. For the peoples best interest, some rights were taken away, some were redefined, and some were given that we hadn't heard of before, like the woman's right to vote. The citizens allowed for their rights to be changed because they understood that it was for the best. This was the start of an asymptote of our rights, which began to shrink, and shrink, until some rights failed to exist. This is were my philosophy comes into play: you either choose to give up your freedoms for "guaranteed safety," or you keep your freedoms, and accept the fact that those freedoms come with some risk. In this case, it's the recent mass shootings we have had. More people die in car crashes then almost anything else, it's a common fact. Will we ban cars to make sure that people are safe?

Thank you for reading, over to you my opponent.


The differences between when our rights were written and ratified is that we are in a different century. Crimes are committed a lot different know than they were in 1776. Our rights were God Given but people have began to take advantage of those rights. If violence is not taken care of things such as the mass shootings have chances of happening again. Sure security can be doubled around the country but that does not guarantee safety, nothing is ever 100% safe but banning arms would stop a lot of violence that goes on in the country.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank You for the response, but you misunderstood my point. Even if gun control can make the country safer, and ask you to prove this, we would be losing a major freedom guaranteed to us by the founding fathers of our country. Also, you should prove that crimes committed between now and then were different. Murder has always been murder, massacre has always been massacre, and theft has always been theft. The founding fathers made a constitution that still applies today. Losing freedom is not the equivalent of the risks that may come with it.

Vote Con


My point exactly this is a Different Century. There are the five freedoms Freedom of religion:freedom of speech:Freedom of the Press:Freedom of assembly:and the freedom to petition. Then we have our amendments which is not a secured right, to prove that our country is now different read the following statement.
Amendment 2.Right to Bear Arms (1791)
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.

A MILITIA, there is no need for a militia that I have seen we have an army, a navy, etc. but they provide you with you fire arms.

Amendment 18 Prohibition just like amendment 2 they are both amendments. This particular act was ratified and repealed due to how the country was taking advantage of this amendment.

The government does have the right to ban arms just like they did for prohibition.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sottaceti 3 years ago
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
Posted by Alysin 3 years ago
Wait , I meant that The other way around. Oops.
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
Alysin makes a good point, like my banning cars example.
Posted by Alysin 3 years ago
Pro as more convincing arguments. All Con is doing is repeativly saying that this is a different century. This is true . But, just banning guns is not going to help lower gun violence. People will still find a way to kill. If you were to ban guns you might as well ban knifes.
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
Umm.. The government didn't have the right to prohibit alcohol, they just did it anyway and it didn't work... sorry my turns over isn't it?
Posted by Mutineer 3 years ago
Didn't repeat sanctity of life = automatic loss for pro :P
Posted by Mutineer 3 years ago
Amendment abuse versus sanctity of life repetition is all I foresee in this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the most persuasive arguments, whereas Pro only trotted out hackneyed, old, tired, and thoroughly discredited arguments. While gun bans might save lives here and there, there is a net increase in murder rates where gun bans are enacted. So, that one life saved comes at the cost of more than one other life being lost.
Vote Placed by LaL36 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because pro misunderstood con's argument a lot. Weak arguments by both sides but pro's was slightly better because it was plain and simple. Gun ban saves lives. And it is worth saving one life.