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

ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/27/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 589 times Debate No: 87345
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I believe that in the united states private ownership of handguns ought to be banned

Handguns can be easily concealed therefore they can easily used for crimes

323 people are shot every day by civilians with guns(the center for disease control and preventation) and 82% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally(Elizabeth Chuck CNN).

Germany ,the country with the second most amount of mass shootings, has had three since 1997 while the united states has had 51 (source Ray Sanchez CNN)


Hello my name is Michael Bojarsky, and as the Con speaker for this debate, I negate my opponent's proposition, "In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned"

To start with, I would like to point out that my opponent failed to introduce a value, or criterion by which to evaluate both his and my arguments, therefore my criterion is the single standard by which to weigh all three rounds and is invalid to refute. My criterion is based on the central value of morality, due to the fact that the moral agent of the resolution is the United States, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, John Locke explains the central value of morality as the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

My first contention is that handguns are not the problem. According to the national association for mental health, one hundred percent of the shootings before 2016 were committed by people with diagnosed mental illness. This takes all the impact out of your first and only contention and has been refuted.

Also you pointed out that the problem with handguns is that they are being obtained illegally, which actually conceits to my point that the problem is with access. With my counterplan, I will and can enforce strict background checks so that anyone with an experience of mental illness in their medical record, doesn't have a perfect crime record, or doesn't have the basic documents needed to purchase a handgun will fail to do so. This has an advanced solvency to the implied problem the resolution logically focuses on and thus is better than the affirmative's plan.

My second contention is that enforcing a handgun ban will actually increase the death rates. According to criminologist brief 23, a statistical analysis that regresses murder rates against the presence or absence of strict gun laws in 20 European nations concludes that strict gun laws are actually correlated with more murders, not fewer. So if we were to ban handguns, there would be even more deaths, which is contradictory to the reason for banning handguns in the first place. My fellow voters, the affirmative is actually killing more people than he thinks he saving in that by disarming law abiding citizens across the U.S, you are leaving them prone to criminals who can by handguns from the black market, or have access to them through smuggling.

My third contention is that banning handguns is unconstitutional. In 2008, in the D.C vs Heller case the supreme court ruled that the second amendment reserves the right for all citizens to purchase a handgun, and that that basic right cannot be infringed. My side has already won life, through my second contention, and also wins liberty through my current contention. By logic, when one has life and liberty, this leads to happiness which I also win as well.

My fourth contention is that handguns are crucial for self-defense. 900,000 times a year, handgun owners use their guns for self-defense. Firearm ownership does have a beneficial self-defense effect. Based on a recent survey by Stanford University, the authors of one study estimated that there were 2.2-to-2.5 million defensive uses of guns annually. Another study estimated that for a period of 12 months ending in 2008, there were 503,481 incidents in which a burglar found himself confronted by an armed homeowner, and that in 98.8% of them, the intruder was successfully scared away. A third study suggests that gun-armed victims are substantially less likely than non-gun-armed victims to be injured in resisting robbery or assault. And additional evidence suggests that criminals are likely to be deterred from burglary and other crimes if they know the victim is likely to have a gun.

Thank you voters for listening to me, and this is why I should win this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent said that handguns are used in self defense but couldn't they also use knifes or rifles for self defense as well as martial art techniques like karate.

My opponent also said that it would be unconstitutional to put bans on handguns "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." the second amendment however I believe that the constitution is out of date and was meant to be modified based on what new technology and education comes out or would you rather keep the 3/5's compromise which was a part of the constitution allowing enslaved blacks to be considered 3/5's of a person when determining the number of representatives for a state. secondly during the time of the constitution two people could stand 50 feet from each other shooting all day and never hit because they were so inaccurate

My mom worked for DC general hospital before the golf war and medics from great Britain one of our ally's during the war came to train for war because their were so many mass shootings

Plus i believe it would not infringe our right to bear arms. infringe is defined as to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US ) because we are still allowed to use rifles shotguns and any other weapon for that matter.

My opponent also claims that my problem with handguns is that they are being obtained illegally while in reality what my argument was "82% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally(Elizabeth Chuck CNN)." check the last word before the source and if you believe that I modified it check line 6 of my argument

My opponent also claimed that enforcing a gun banned would decrease the death rate however we are the country with the loosest gun control laws and the country with the most mass shootings by 17 times the closest competitor ,Germany.

According to some study's people that have handguns in their house are 3 times as likely to commit suicide because it is so easy to do.


Firstly, I would like to first start by refuting my opponent's responses. Firstly, handguns are the most successful weapon of defense according to criminologist brief 23, therefore, to use a knife would not do to help if a burglar were to say invade with a rifle. Also a rifle is required to be held with both hands, so any chance of actually capturing a robber would be mythical. I would also like to add that only 0.1 percent to of robbers were actually scared off with rifles, according to the violence policy center. My opponent said that we have access to rifles and shotguns therefore we are not violating the second amendment. But to take even one of the options for self defense our citizens have a right to is unlawful, according to the Supreme Court. It is logical to state that the Supreme Court is more reliable than my opponent. He also said that criminals have access to legal guns more than illegal guns, but my counterplan will also prohibit criminals from getting guns while still maintaining the liberties of the American citizens. This solves better for the value, which he failed to apply his arguments to and thus has conceited to my evaluation statements, which he dropped as well.

Thank you, and this is why I have already won this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


first off my opponent claims that taking away access to even a small part of the right to bear arms is unlawful but if it is unlawful to take away handguns it is also unlawful to take away their access to nuclear weapons or rocket launchers.

Secondly how does my opponent plan to take away criminals access to guns he hasn't said anything about his so called plan other than that it exists.

thirdly he has ignored the fact that 323 people are shot every day by guns that would be 118218 just this year (source center for disease control and presentation)

He has ignored the fact that private ownership means that cops can still stop shootings and robbers from stealing from your house

fourthly he has cited a total of two of his facts which leads me to believe he is just throwing around numbers and hoping you ,the audience, will take it as fact.

fifthly one of the audience members ,inspector, said that handguns would be easy to obtain illegally as may be true however this is just a step because if handguns are legal that means that more handguns will be put into the country legally meaning that people can steal these handguns simple making it easier to obtain them illegally. once we have banned handguns we can start making it harder for people to obtain them illegally but we should do this one step at a time.


Since round 3 is a rebuttal round, I will first start by refuting my opponent's points and then I will continue on to weigh this debate.

My opponent raised the question, "is it then unlawful to ban access to nuclear weapons or rocket launchers?" Let us then look to the second amendment. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms in order that citizen can orchestrate a well regulated militia. By definition, the ultimate aim of an arms, then is for self-defense. There has never been a time, nor will there ever be, in which a private owner of a nuclear bomb or missile, was able to successfully defend him or herself from an intruder in the United States. This really shows in the end the lack of experience my opponent has. In fact, if anything it hurts the owner and those around him, therefore this argument has nothing to do with the specific resolution.

Secondly, my plan is just as simple as my opponent, but more effective. With our strict background checks, we make sure that we thoroughly search every purchaser's personal, crime , and medical record. If they have a blemish on their crime record, or have had an experience of mental illness, then the gun will be denied to them. I would also like to add that my opponent in contrary me, had completely failed to mention how he will carry out his propositional plan under the standards of the resolution.

In plain response to my opponent's third refutation. I have not in fact ignored your argument, I have refuted it as you can see in my first argument round. I do agree that handguns kill, but I have credible evidence pointing to 20 nations that did what the affirmative here is proposing to do and ended up with a higher death rate. If anything my opponent failed to refute my response to his argument which, in the debate world, means he has conceded to the refutation and agreed with me that this argument is wrong.

If my opponent wants to talk about cops, where were the cops at the sandy hook shooting. Where were they at the Oregon shooting, at the planned parenthood shooting, at the paris shootings. Self defense is a crucial element for household all over the US, and my opponent cannot deny it.

In the end I really want to say, that it is informal, if not rude that my opponent after realizing he will lose this debate, is attempting to accuse me of cheating. My opponent is undeserving of winning this debate, I mean he's had only one statistic which was easily refuted, and his only source was the disease control center.

In response to his fifth point, my opponent is ignorant to the fact that the 20 or 10% of criminals who get guns illegally will be reluctant to use it if they know their victim has the chance of having one. But then again we won't have armed criminals because they will no longer have access to guns.

Now, to weigh this debate. Voters, as you can see from these 3 short rounds, my opponent has proved that firstly his one statistic is prone to error, his source is only one, and his plan is vague and general. I have proven to you that his plan is contradictory to the reason for doing it, that he will be ridding citizens of self-defense, and will be defying the document on which this beloved nation was founded, the constitution.

I have but one more thing to say for my opponent. If you do enforce the gun ban, you will be making every gun in that black market, in the hands of the criminals, all across the U.S ultimately pointed, at you. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by guyawesome1 2 years ago
i am starting a research team for Lincoln douglas debates using evernote to share research if anyone is interested pm me your evernote account
Posted by Inspector 2 years ago
One thing that I usually see people tend to ignore, That even if Handguns were to be made illegal to own it is still very simple to get one illegally. Especially due to the fact the country is flooded with guns. Even if it wasn't it would still be rather easy to get in a country like the US. Which is why banning handguns will be absolutely pointless. What they should do is make them harder to attain. And more difficult to get a gun aka through psychological evaluation and bi annual psychological meeting to prove that you are still sane and take other precautions.
Posted by guyawesome1 2 years ago
mmelaku if you put your name on the internet it makes it easier for someone to steal your identity
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BenJWasson 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con provides a better argument overall.