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

gun banns

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: 3/10/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 31148
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




If we ban guns, pistols should come before assault rifles. I believe no guns should be banned. Opponent must argue that either all guns should be banned, or just assault rifles.


I believe that guns should be banned, and I will explicate that in the following debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Now I'm assuming you are saying "all" guns. This however is not possible, and making a law to take away the rights will not help anyone. There are 2 types of people in this country, I'm talking about the U.S.A., and that is law abiding citizens, and non-law abiding citizens. I will be explaining this in the next few rounds.
Now please tell me why automatic rifles should be ban while pistols are still out there. If this is not your argument, please tell me in the next round. If it is, give me some examples of why it should be banned over pistols.


Yeah I'm arguing all guns.

Basically all laws that the US Government pass are impossible to enforce completely. There will always be resistance to any law especially one that takes away their privilege (not right) to own guns. So your argument about the dichotomy of the law-abiding and the non-law-abiding applies to every privilege circumscription law, even those that have been passed already.

I believe that banning all guns will lower the amount of gun violence. If there aren't any laws to ban guns, there will be people, some perhaps with mental disorders, that will be a threat to society because of their legal possession of firearms.

Therefore, I believe that by restricting guns available to the civilian to zero, we can reduce gun violence.
Debate Round No. 2


So You think this will work? You think that taking away the millions of guns will lower crime rates? Well over ten million illegal immigrants have been able to sneak into the U.S.
You think that banning guns will stop this?
All you are doing is taking away guns from the law abiding citizens.
Let's say all guns in America disappear. They will only slowly come back and only to the criminals who sneak them into the country.
There is also the chance of the government getting to controlling.
You can not say it will never happen because that is an assumption. America is the youngest country meaning it is the last country that can say we will never be taken over the government. Personally I don't think it will happen, but it is always a possibility.
There would be more harm done if all these guns were taken away.


Yes, I do believe it will work. May have a cite for the 10 million immigrants statistics? And are these immigrants taking guns, or are they just coming into the United States?

Also, the fact that these illegal immigrants are sneaking them in isn't the topic of our debate. They are non-law-abiding citizens seeing as they are illegal trespassers of United States soil. Seizing guns from illegal immigrants is an entirely different issue.

"You think that banning guns will stop this?"
Banning guns in the United States definitely won't stop the illegal immigrant's smuggling of guns, but as I said, that's an entirely different problem that gun banning alone can't solve. That also isn't the problem I'm aiming to solve by banning guns.

"All you are doing is taking away guns from the law abiding citizens."
Yeah, but you forget that by taking away these guns, it can prevent civilian crimes and deaths from happening all the time. Things like domestic murders, suicides, and to an extent, school shootings like the one in Newtown, Connecticut.

"Let's say all guns in America disappear. They will only slowly come back and only to the criminals who sneak them into the country."
Assuming that gun smuggling into the United States is a serious problem in the status quo or post-plan, there is no evidence that these criminals that sneak into the US with guns will sell them rampantly to Average Joe civilians. However, what we are doing right now without gun bans is. In the United States, 45 states doesn't need rifle buyers to have a permit, and 38 states doesn't need handgun buyers to have a permit.* We're basically handing them out to those who are interested in buying but doesn't have the necessary psychological or physical requirements. This is what caused shootings like Columbine, VirginiaTech, and Sandy Hook.

"There is also the chance of the government getting to controlling."
Extrapolate on that in the next round, please.

"You can not say it will never happen because that is an assumption. America is the youngest country meaning it is the last country that can say we will never be taken over the government. Personally I don't think it will happen, but it is always a possibility."
First of all, America isn't the youngest country. The youngest country by definition is the Republic of South Sudan. Second, you don't seem to be very confidant in your argument. Third, however, the United Kingdom banned the private ownership of firearms and they have one of the lowest gun crime rate in the world.** However, United Kingdom is obviously very democratic and has no possible future in government controlling the nation. In fact, gun violence in the US is 40 times higher (percentage by population) than the UK.

"There would be more harm done if all these guns were taken away."
I assume you will thoroughly prove that you in the next round.

So to recapitulate, gun banning and illegal immigrants are two different sides of two VERY different coins, gun banning solves for domestic murders, suicides, etc. Gun banning also will keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally-ill and will lead to lower crime rate, as evidenced by the UK.

Debate Round No. 3


Many people don't think about this, and maybe it is true it's not really worth taking into consideration, but what I mean by the government getting to controlling is by us losing our rights, etc. Turning into a dictatorship. Now there may be a very little chance of this ever happening, but it is a mistake you can only make once. History shows us what controlling government can do. It's history. You can't ignore it.
Now I'm on a kindle fire so it's almost impossible to show my citations. But there is millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Please look it up if you wish.
Now please explain to me how you can get these criminals to hand in their guns. I have yet to hear one good idea besides completely turning into a dictatorship and breaking into their house.

Now please give me some ideas of what an unarmed man can do to protect his family if a criminal with an illegal purchased gun broke into his house.


You fail to debate we Americans deserve this "right". We don't, in fact. This is a privilege. By saying that we take guns away from people turns us into a dictatorship is a huge leap. Once again, I provided a cite that shows the UK's success in its gun bans, which you failed to refute. The United Kingdom is SURELY not a dictatorship! Dictatorship is caused by something way more than just taking guns away from people so I fail to see how your argument materializes.

I agree there are illegal immigrants in the country. However, I don't believe your number of 10 million. Also, I don't know if this is 10 million every year? Or 10 million total? A citation would provide clarity on that I hope. I believe it's not my burden to prove your statistics.

First, I would like to say that we're not only trying to get criminals to hand in their guns. We want all the citizens to do so. Second, I believe I never said to break into peoples' houses to take their guns for the Fourth Amendment protects them against unreasonable seizures and searches. Third, please show a clear causal link between gun ownership and dictatorship.

Even though the unarmed man can't do much to protect his family, that is not what my case is wanting to solve. My case wants to solve public shootings, where everybody is practically unarmed. By restricting guns and making it harder to access them, it makes it harder for these shootings to happen!

In Round 3, I showed that an overwhelming majority of the states allow anyone to purchase handguns and rifles without needing a license to purchase one. This allows anyone to have easy accessibility to have a gun, even though they might not be physically qualified or psychologically qualified. This is what caused the insane shootings at Newtown and Virginia Tech.

Also in round 3, I provided hard evidence that one, gun banning won't lead to dictatorships like in United Kingdom, and two, gun banning lowers violence, also evidenced by my link.

Finally, I asked you to explain why more harm would be done in Round 4, which really haven't done so you agree that more good will come from gun banning.

My case:
1. Gun banning is dangerous because anyone, even medically insane people, can easily obtain it. This led to horrible incidents.
2. Gun banning doesn't lead to dictatorship and will lead to a safer environment, as shown in the United Kingdom.
3. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4


1. No, I"m not taking a huge leap. The amendments are not a "right"" I don"t know where you ever heard that" and I"m not saying that we will automatically turn into a dictatorship, just taking the civilians weapons are always the first thing a dictator does. Are you also saying the freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a privilege? No, not at all because this is why this country was created.
Being allowed to protect yourself against the government, which is what the second amendment is saying, is not a privilege from the government" sounds kind of stupid if you ask me.
2. First of all it is well over ten million, but that isn"t even the point. It just shows how it is easy to sneak into America, never mind bringing in weapons.
No, weapon smuggling may not be a problem right now, but it would be if all guns were banned. As you can see drugs are banned, and so much of it has been snuck into the US. The same would go for guns if you couldn"t get them in the US anymore.

3. So what"s your point? You can"t take guns away as easily as you think. It would only be easy by taking them away from law abiding citizens, because they follow the law. Criminals don"t"

Tell me how you would take the guns away from a criminal.

1.You just said gun banning is dangerous. I"m confused with your point.

2.Do you know the history of the US? We don"t want to start following into England"s ideas of ruling. That"s why our country was created" that"s why the second amendment is there, so we don"t become like them.

3.Vote whoever the hell you want


1. Your logic is fallacious. Just because it's always the first thing a dictator does, doesn't mean that every time it happens, a dictatorship is imminent. You still neglected my United Kingdom example. My evidence clearly shows that gun banning and dictatorship has no correlation whatsoever. Once again, the United Kingdom's murder rate with guns is 40 times less than the United States'. That's very substantial.

First, I'm not saying that the freedom of speech, press, petition, religion, and assembly are privileges. Those are rights. But have you read the explicit words of Amendment 2? Here it is and I quote:
"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."
It says a well regulated militia. Unless you're in the militia, you're not authorized to have one, and that's the supreme law.

2. Your 10 million figure matters. Is it 10 million illegal immigrants over the course of US History? 10 million illegal immigrants since the last 10 years? Because if it is the former, it's not very impressive. 10 million throughout a course of over 200+ years wouldn't prove your point at all. I urge that the voters would disregard his uncited argument.

I addressed your gun smuggling issue in Round 3. You didn't provide any evidence that says that gun banning will lead to the rampant selling of guns to Average Joe Americans. I urge that the voters disregard this argument as well.

3. My point is that gun banning will lead to less public shootings, which you didn't refute as well. By restricting guns, Average Joe Ameicans don't have the power to commit spontaneous murders in public area.

1. An overwhelming majority of the Fifty States allow anyone to purchase a firearm. That, as I have proven, is incredibly dangerous because medically insane people could obtain them without any difficulty. (

2. Gun banning WILL make the country safer, as shown in United Kingdom and Germany. This is because no one can obtain them, and thus making public shootings much scarcer, or even disappear. (

1. I have successfully shown and provided links that gun banning isn't destructive to the nation's security.
2. I have successfully responded to every issue my opponent presented me.

I urge the voters to only assess the arguments and rebuttals presented within this debate. I thank my opponent for creating this debate. Thank you for reading the entire debate and using your impartial judgment to cast your ballot.

PS: In Round 4, in my recap, I meant "Not banning guns...". Sorry for the confusion, if it caused any.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
people say guns are bad. an evil man went into an elementary school and did something very terrible. no teachers had anything to defend themselves or the children. they called the police which people think is an amzing option and that the police will totally save you. the swat team got there in less then 2 minutes. 26 people died in that process. you got any better ideas to stop these acts in their tracks? please tell me. and dont say that if guns were illegal it would never have happen. would it of happen? no one knows for sure and you can never "assume". this maniac wanted to be a killer. i think he would have found a gun in his case if he was willing to do something as sick as this...
Posted by Noswad63 4 years ago
First I would like to say that gun control would do nothing to stop criminals. If such a law to ban firearms was put into motion, criminals would not obey it, the only thing it would cause is more trouble. Imagine gangs and criminals with their illegal markets for drugs and other substances then imagine a illegal market for guns also. It would cause more deaths and gun violence than ever. The problem with the United States and all the gun related deaths a year is because of all the gang violence and too many criminals having access to firearms through illegal markets. Now if citizens didn't have firearms to protect themselves with criminals would be free to do as they wish. I am completely for concealed carrying. What if a criminal knew the establishment he was about to rob was armed with adleast one or two gun carrying citizens. I doubt he would proceed with his crime since criminals are cowards who only fight those who have no chance to defend themselves. Imagine if the principal at sandy hook or any teacher for that matter was a concealed carrier. He probably would've stopped the gunman dead in his tracks. Or another problem with the gun violence is police respond time. The average response time for police is 10 minutes. By that time he could have killed half the school and still gotten away. That brings another issue to my mind: blaming the gun. Most people say "guns kill people" which is a completely false statement considering guns are inanimate objects with no free will of their own. It is the misuse of guns by people that kill people. So I propose gun control stays how it is and the government cracks down on gang violence illegal markets and any form of criminal gun smuggling or violence.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
Guns are a right... it says we have the right to arm our selves. It doesn't say we HAVE to be in a militia to own a gun.
Posted by ladygagadisco 4 years ago
You should read Round 5 then.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
@ladygagadisco, according to the Bill of RIGHTS, guns are a right.
No votes have been placed for this debate.