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

usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 495 times Debate No: 82377
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.



Guns are an important check on the establishment of a tyrannical government. How else are we supposed to over throw them and return to a free society? It is important to understand that most people throughout history, heck, most people extant at this moment, are not free. Freedom is a scarce and wonderful thing. So I will not trust, naively, in the state, but instead seek to trust in myself and want to prepare for the unthinkable.

Writing in 'The Gulag Archipelago' Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the agony that prisoners of the Soviet Slave state felt about not resisting their enslavement.

". And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of
half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur-what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! "

Is it really so unthinkable, that what has happened in countless societies, could happen here in the West? Should we not prepare, yes pray that day never comes, but should we not prepare for the eventuality of dictatorship here? Should we not have a plan, so that we are not the ones burning in the camps wondering why we did not resist? Why we did not fight for our freedom? You may naively assure me that this will never happen, and I will hope that you are right, but rather than simply hoping I would instead prefer to fight to ensure that our society is free and that due process and the rule of law triumph over kangeroo courts and the suspension of civil liberties.
Debate Round No. 1


con favors protecting against a far fetched government take over, over the concrete reality of thousands of people dying of murder each year. i assume he is okay with the murders in the name of security from the government


"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Debate Round No. 2


con adds effectively nothing, so i reiterate my points


Freedom isn't free; own a gun.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: IceeeStorm1816// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Giving the win to Pro because her reasons were more fitting to the topic. She also argued every point while Con simply restated his.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain the S&G point allocation. (2) The voter doesn't analyze any specific arguments in the debate, simply generalizing by saying that one side's arguments "were more fitting to the topic".
Posted by SnaxAttack 1 year ago
I would like to debate you on this.
Posted by CJames 1 year ago
We tied our last one on guns, I would be happy to carry over to your premise here if you would allow.
Posted by geho89 1 year ago
I would love to debate this issue and educate you on gun issues, but it appears that you are way out of my league in ranking so I cannot join in. You make several statements that you are more likely to be shot with a gun, which is true in a way, since guns have the potential to kill people by shooting. What you fail to understand is that there is practically 0% chance of being stabbed by a gun to death unless it is something similar to a bayonet, and yes there are laws against these or better yet, mauled to death by a gun. What should be focused on is the relation with the ownership of guns and the rate of homicides. You make the claim that more guns equal more homicides, which is wrong. I will post several links for you to see a different perspective, but I will not be the representative to debate you since this is the comment session. You also made a claim with Australia, so as an added bonus, I include a couple of link for it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.