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

the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

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: 11/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 340 times Debate No: 82376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense.

more guns means more overall homicide;

would you be open to this if it could reduce murders by say, eighty percent?

i reluctantly would probably support bans and confiscation on a nationwide scale. this view doesn't make me popular and i dont like taking people's guns away. and i am open to evidence to contradict my main premises and cause me more caution in my view. i am just openly considering the idea, which is what i think should be expected from everyone.

as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense.

i would expect if we banned and confiscated weopons that gun murders would go down as that's what the evidence indicates. i'm sure with the open borders etc that there would still be some murder, and defenseless people, just not as much. the main reason people need a gun for self defense is because there's so many guns to begin with. ive never seen someone acknowledge "yes we get more murder with gun rights, but that's the way it is for self defense". but it seems that's what the situation is. getting rid of guns should be taken seriously, i just dont know the exact numbers for what would happen.

i know australia banned and confiscated a bunch of more serious guns and they knocked their rate in half. and they went from one mass shooting per year to none, that's not a statistical anomaly. that's not bad, if it was more serious confiscating, i could see it knocking say eighty percent of the murders. is that worth it while leaving people defenseless? i suppose it's not unreasonable to think otherwise than what im pushing, but yhou should at least acknowledge the deaths you're allowing for and openly consider both sides.



For the Record, your Oxford link didn't work.

When in the course of human events, government outgrows its obligated duty to the people of its country, something must be done. When government starts running the citizen's lives, there is a major issue and it is time for a new government. According to John Locke, when government becomes too strong and is a daily interference in the people's lives, you have a right to overthrow the government. Now, how are you going to overthrow the government? With words? No. With marches? No. You must fight. With guns. Without guns, the government would run over the citizens of the United States like a tank runs over the Taliban.

The Main reason of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people of the U.S. from the government. Without it, we would not be the same country we are today. The United States was founded on a few principles that made us different from the rest of the world. The idea that the people ran the government. Not the other way around. And I sure as hell would rather live in a dangerous, free-world, than I would live in peaceful slavery.

But now, guns in fact DO make towns and countries safer. For example, in Kennesaw, Georgia (1982), there was a law passed requiring the heads of households to hold at least one gun with ammunition. While the rest of the country thought there would be shootings everywhere in the city, crime rate actually plunged 89% according to Plus, think about it. If you were planning on shooting someone, would you try to attack someone with or without a gun? I would not like to fight someone
Debate Round No. 1


con's main point is the government might pose a threat some day. well, we can protect state militia rights, if needed. everyone doesn't need a gun. but at any rate, con is worried about far fetched theoretical take overs when there is a murder epidemic happening right now, a present concrete reality.

con gave at best anecdotal evidence of georgiea that doesn't negate the tons of links i showed in the comments that show more guns mean more homicide and there is no correlation between the number of guns and the amount of crime. plus he needs a better link or source for his information so it can be more easily inspected.


Pro believes that government takeovers are far fetched. In what way? We have seen it throughout history. Considering the main idea of the 2nd Amendment of the United States is based solely on that reason, the corruption of politics is using the idea that guns cause murder as a way to disarm the public. So they can keep control. Protecting state militia rights won't do anything. Militias are controlled by the government.

Pro didn't provide any real evidence that gun laws caused less crime. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, The United States has the highest gun possession rate in the world, but doesn't have the highest firearm homicide rate. In fact, we are below the world average. (

But let's get back to basics. The only person that can stop a criminal with a gun, is a law enforcement officer or armed civilian. Police officers are not always around. But if you are armed and trained with a gun, and you happened to get attacked, the police won't help you. But you can help yourself with the gun. It's that simple. Now tell me, pro. If you were a criminal looking to shoot up a building, would you go in there knowing everyone is armed? Or would you go into a gun-free zone? According to National Review (2012), "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns." (

Would banning guns even do anything, though? If you successfully banned all firearms, all of them had been seized by the government from the law-abiding citizens. What about the illegal firearms? Criminals are not going to turn in their weapons. And there will be no record of them since they were purchased illegally. According to the Washington Post, most weapons in mass shootings have been obtained illegally.
So even gun laws would not stop most shootings.
Debate Round No. 2


does con say it's okay that so many people die in order to protect against the government? at any rate, it's still a far fetched theory over a concrete present day reality.

the USA might not have the worst homicdie rate, but it is considered one of the worst for developed countires, and we have a lot of guns.

i dont know if gun free zones are effective or not if we have guns. if we dont have so many guns though the evidence says we'd have less death. con mentions self defense. the main reason we need self defense is because we have so many guns to begin with.

con says most mass shootings were obtained illegally. i dont know if that's correct as many of the people were mentally ill and got their guns legit. but at any rate, con has n't debunked that more guns means more homicides. criminals will still get some guns but given more guns are gone, more killings won't happen. there's not a magic line between criminals and legal people with guns.... legal people become criminals more likely with guns. without so many guns, there'd be less death. bottomline, which has not been debunked.


Pro doesn't relate any of her links to her argument. The arguments she has been using have been both weak and ineffective.

1) "it is considered one of the worse for developed countries, and we have a lot of guns."
I want to see some linking of your arguments to sources. You obviously didn't read anything I provided for you. With the amount of guns the United States has compared to the amount of firearm homicides (which most developed countries don't report, but are predicted to be higher than the U.S.), we are way ahead of other countries in the world. If the amount of guns each citizen in the U.S. has had to do with the amount of murders, we would be the highest murdering country in the world.

2) "I don't know if gun free zones are effective or not if we have guns"
We will always have guns. You will never be able to get rid of them. This is because of this thing called the black market. Gun free zones do absolutely nothing to stop shootings and most shootings happen in gun-free zones, as I said before. Pro thinks that we need self-defense because we have so many guns. That's quite wrong. If the law-abiding citizens have guns, where all guns are legally bought, use properly and safely, they won't be shooting any one. Only defending.

Your ending statement is not strong. The evidence proves in The Washington Post that almost ALL shootings happen with illegal guns. You didn't read any of my sources, didn't do proper research, and didn't have a strong argument. I have debunked that more guns mean more homicides, through my last three arguments I have. When you make guns illegal, again, you are only taking them from the law-abiding citizens. The criminals most likely have illegal guns, the criminals won't turn them in, then the criminals shoot unarmed, defenseless men, women, and children. Gun owners with a stable mind are not more likely to become criminals with a gun. That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. I hereby conclude my argument by saying that banning and confiscating firearms will not reduce murders, but in fact raise them.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Golfer15 1 year ago
taking away things will never prevent things.. People can still get guns somehow illegally.

It's also like the argument that a spoon made you fat, Alcohol made you drunk, guns kill people right? People would never kill people..
Posted by CJames 1 year ago
Wish I had noticed the correct link here, I could have adjusted my argument for it ... LOL. But I had the right paper in any case.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 1 year ago

that is the link, excuse me
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 1 year ago

a working link with the links included
No votes have been placed for this debate.