The Instigator
zezima
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
brianhyang
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

banning all guns in the U.S. will work

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
zezima
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,215 times Debate No: 33392
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

zezima

Con

if the government were to pass a law that banned all guns it would not work.

opponent must prove or at least show the most evidence why it could.
brianhyang

Pro

First time doing this, so I might not be clear on how this works. Sorry if this is improperly formatted or unclear.

I affirm the resolution: Banning all guns in the U.S would work. I'll start of with definitions.
For the most part, the resolution is clear in its meaning. However, there are some terms that must be clarified.
Oxford Dictionaries defines "ban" as officially or legally prohibit. Within the context of this debate, "banning all guns in the U.S" means that the U.S federal government would enact a law that would prohibit the possession and use of all firearms.
Furthermore, the term "work" must be clarified. "Work" simply means to achieve the desired end. The action of enacting a law to ban guns doesn't necessarily imply that the aim is to stop gun use. Rather, the only concrete goal of the ban would be to have the government enforce the ban on guns. Therefore the question is of whether or not the United States federal government is necessarily able to have a ban on guns enforced on a federal level. It should be noted that whether or not guns are successfully kept from the citizens isn't necessarily a factor in the ban "working".

My sole contention is that the United States can very easily get federal officers and departments to enforce a ban on guns. Although popularity might not be high, the chance of any resistance in the form of a coup or otherwise are highly improbable. The question of whether or not federal departments and officers will comply with a federally enacted law can be answered with an obvious yes.

Therefore, I urge a strong vote for the proposition.
Debate Round No. 1
zezima

Con

for example guns would not dissapear and crime rates would not move.

lets say there was a ban on the guns. there are around 300 million guns on the streets that are already owned. how do you expect to catch these people? do you think they will just hand them over?

please tell me what your plan would be for this to work.

i dont really have anything to say until my opponent explains or comes up with a solution to consficate these weapons.
brianhyang

Pro

brianhyang forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
zezima

Con

what would you do if a man who could over power you came in and attacked your family? ask him to stop? call the police? fight him? please explain what you would do.
brianhyang

Pro

brianhyang forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
zezima

Con

Obama wants your guns!!! he is an evil dictator who will take over the country and turn the world into a one world government!!! we must be ready!!!
brianhyang

Pro

brianhyang forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
brianhyang

Pro

brianhyang forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by CaptJack92a 4 years ago
CaptJack92a
You're not even arguing about guns anymore. The president and his actions aren't quite relevant. At least not in the way you posted your most recent reply.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
zezima
he hasn't even answered, what do you expect? I don't have anything else to say until he answers...
Posted by CaptJack92a 4 years ago
CaptJack92a
Zezima, you need to have more substance to your arguments. Not just make short handed remarks. You may have it in your head about your opinion, but you can't just sit here and say you are right and try to trip up your opponent with short remarks which can actually be more easily shrugged off or shot down as invalid, or without any valid substance.
Posted by kraayvangerj 4 years ago
kraayvangerj
Argument being, there is a need for guns.
Shortly after World War 2, in Athens, and Etowah, Tennessee, there was a great span of corruption where the McMinn County Sheriff"s Department and the local officials took bribes, illegally failed to monitor whisky production, and used voting fraud in elections to maintain their positions. A battle broke out between the citizens, World War 2 veterans, and the corrupted deputies and politicians. The deputies fired on a black civilian voter and proclaimed to the people, "You sons-of-bitches cross this street and I'll kill you!" For several years the citizens of the county requested monitoring officials from the state and federal government because of the fraud, but never was there a response. Force was necessarily used against the corrupt sheriff and deputies who stole the ballots and took them to the jail. The deputies were not even legally at the poles according to Tennessee state law. Several ex GIs and local boys took back their community and the criminal politicians and deputies fled.
-exert from a research paper by myself Gun Control: Out of Control, Jason Kraayvanger
my source is http://constitution.org...
Posted by CaptJack92a 4 years ago
CaptJack92a
In the U.S. [United States]: First of all, my opposition to the ban. The mere fact that this debate is taking place over the laws of this country are quite oddly futile. Even if it does happen, the problem is that this being "the land of the free" would no longer be a valid remark. We would become a democratic society in which where our freedoms are stricken from us at the whim of the government. Therefore we would no longer be the same country. Democratic principles would also be forfeit as more and more regulation and power is given to the government rather than the vote of the people.

If anything it would be further giving the government more power over the citizens, which is also wrong as the government was originally established to help keep track of our laws, not control them, or us for that matter.

katrilenyah: I highly agree with your comment, I actually said something similar in a speech I had given not too long ago.

Stop trying to direct the attention to how "vague" the words used in the title are. You know what it is, so just debate the subject. Or at least put your argument paragraph first, then give us definitions in a foot note. For this credibility goes down.

Starter, please don't simply open with a sentence, give us a valid reasoning for this argument. Give us a strong opening, not just here's the subject, go. That much should be clear and covered in the debate subject line. Not your opening statement. For this credibility goes down.

Both sides of argument still on equal grounds, both at low credibility. My vote abstained for round one.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
zezima
i hate it when people compare "drugs and murder are illegal and people still do it so we might as well make it not illegal" to owning guns.
Posted by katrilenyah 4 years ago
katrilenyah
I highly doubt that banning guns in the U.S. will work. Just like there is a black market for drugs, a black market for weapons. I agree with better and stricter background checks but Banning guns will not work. It's like saying criminals will follow the law not to steal or kill. If some ones desperate enough to want a gun they will find it.
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Skynet
I agree with you...I think. "Work" is too vague and leaves you open to trolls. Specify to what end it would work.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
zezimabrianhyangTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's tactic was to equate "banning all guns" with "trying to ban all guns." Con should have pointed out the semantics, but it was nonetheless apparent. Pro forfeited, losing conduct and leaving Con's objections unanswered. Con should have made stronger arguments, pointing to the complete gun bans in Mexico and Russia and their ineffectiveness. No matter, Pro left the room.