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

Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 5/14/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,273 times Debate No: 113922
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)




Banning guns will not stop crime in America. Change my mind


Banning Guns Will drastically Reduce Crime
In 2015, 13,286 Americans were injured by guns. 26,819 were killed.
Guns are one of the top weapons of choice for crime in America. They are favoured over knives and blunt objects in situations like armed robbery, muggings, murder and attempted murder.
If we ban guns, we can reduce the amount of lives that are lost each year. Guns are extremely easy to obtain, and require little to no skill when being shot at point-blank range, whereas knives and blunt objects require a fair amount of critical thinking and brute force.
Debate Round No. 1


That number (27,000) includes suicide. 2/3 of those deaths are sudcides, that leaves only 9,000 deaths. Using that number the USA has LESS murders and much LESS violent crime per capita than other high gun controlled areas (i.e England, Australia, ect). Even if that number is high, guns stop more crimes that they are used in. A study done by a Tennessee professor (who is a registered Democrat) found that anywhere between 500,000 and 2,000,000 crimes are stopped by food guys with guns.

Guns are not easy to obtain. You actually need a valid ID a place of residence, and you need to go through a full FBI background check. If you are a domestic abuser or have committed a violent crime, you cannot buy a gun.

Australia's mandatory buy back has not helped. The violent crime rate has been decreasing, but at a much much slower rate than before their ban. After Englands gun ban, the violent crime rate has now gone up and they have more violent crime than New York City. The most densely populated city in the world. Gun ban DO NOT WORK! There is a lot of statistical background to prove this.


"Gun bans do not work" is a very black and white statement. Let's remeber that correlation does not equal causation.
I will, once again, plead the argument that guns are easy to obtain. in states like Nevada, Virginia and even Florida, neither a waiting period or special permit are required. Private sellers are not legally obliged to perform any background checks. semi-automatic rifles are commonly used in mass shootings, and are one of the easiest guns to legally obtain.

Mass shootings are a huge problem in the U.S. Think of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, or the one in Las Vegas, or even the one at Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Killing ten or twenty people within mere minutes is easy with a gun.

Besides, why do we need guns? For "protection"? Maybe in the instance of a home invasion, perhaps. Of course, that is, if you can get to both the gun and the ammo on time, which are required to be locked up in seperate places.

Guns aren't necessary. They are unsafe and illogical, and cause more harm than good.
Debate Round No. 2


There are three reasons that we need Huns and the founding fathers intended it this way, and it still applies today.

1) Defense from unlawful citizens
"arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property" " Thomas Paine

2) Protection from external and/or foreign threats
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the SECURITY OF THE FREE STATE the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" " Thomas Jefferson

3) Protection from the government
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left, but that original right of self defense." " Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #28
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize"the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear arms" " Tench Coxe

Before every great slaughter the government has first disarmed its citizens so that they cannot fight back. Nazi Germany; Soviet Russia; Communist China; Cambodia. They all combined for over 100 Million cold hearted murders. So don"t even try and say that guns do more harm then good. Not one government has been able to tryannize and slaughter citizens while those citizens are armed and ready to fight back. Guns are absolutely necessary.

By private sellers I"m assuming that you mean family members. If you are giving a gun to a family member then no, you are not required to give a background check, but ANY licensed dealer is required to give an FBI background check and see a valid ID. And yes this includes gun shows. There is no gun show loophole. That was a myth made up by the Obama Administration.

The people that are lost at mass shooting are tragic and should never happen, but guns are not the problem. Evil people are. The Las Vegas shooting could have been done just as deadly or even more effective by running a car through, but he didn"t because good people with guns would have shot him. That"s why that coward did what he did with a gun. Those murders are senseless, but evil people do evil things, and there is very little we can do to stop it. What we can do is stop the 500,000 to 2,000,000 Crimes that Guns DO stop each year. That saves lives.

Guns are needed for our safety and our protection


First of all, the rules that were created years ago made sense in that time period. but if science and technology are evolving, why aren't gun laws?

"Defense from unlawful citizens" is ridiculous! It's sad that the first thought that comes to your mind when you witness a home invasion is not to call the authorities, but instead to pull out your gun and potentially kill, or at least wound the intruder? Gun shots are extremely painful, and can cause lasting nerve damage.In all states, in all jurisdictions you do not have the right to kill someone over property (this includes pets and livestock). If you can you have a duty to retreat (although not always required by law). The only lawful way you can use deadly force as a civilian or private citizen is when your life is in danger of death of great bodily harm, therefore, unless the intruder bears a weapon, you should back off.

"Protection from external and/or foreign threats." Maybe, back in the days of the Old American West. If some foreign country wants to declare war on the U.S., I can guarantee that it won't be by marching through each and every state, killing citizens off one by one. Nuclear war is much faster, easier and more deadly. Carrying a gun to protect yourself from "external threats" is laughable.

"Protection from the government". Well, since President Trump doesn't seem to be too concerned about guns, it is highly unlikely that the government is preparing to launch a mass genocide.

Since 2014, guns have been killing nearly as many people as vehicles are. It seems that not only do most families in America own at least one car, but they also own a gun. More than one third of Americans say that either themselves or someone in their household owns a firearm.

Guns are NOT necessary for safety and protection. Why do you think we have police officers?
Debate Round No. 3


The rules that were made 200 years ago STILL apply today. I"ve explained that in my arguments above.

Do you have ANY idea about police arrival time?!? That is one of the dumbest arguments for gun control that I have heard. That statement is completely non-sensicle. When I see somebody breaking into my property, I"m not going to wait for 5-10 minutes or more for the police to arrive, I"m going to pull out my gun and shoot them before they are able to harm me or my family. Not see that the "Intruder bears a weapon" and "back off". Thats a recipe to get killed and your stuff stolen. You are confusing two different laws, I am not able to kill somebody to take their land, that"s murder. If somebody breaks into my house I have every right to defend my property.

Nobody will use nuclear weapons in a war. After seeing the destruction to Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Augest 1945, and knowing that if they use them, they will get nuked back, they are impractical for war. It is highly unlikely that a government can invade us, but Britian thought they invincible too, nobody knows what can happen in 20 years. Right now, there are no threats, but have some foresight and realize that the world changes.

As for the most important part of the second Ammendment, protection from the government, I"m sure that Germany thought the same thing in 1931, that the government could never start a mass genocide. Little did they know that in 10 years, 7 million people would be systematically murdered. I"m sure that China thought the same thing until Mao took office and murdered 50 Million people. Just because a government is not oppressive now does not mean they will never. Governments turn oppressive all of the time and the FIRST thing they do it strip citizens of their arms so that they cannot defend themselves. That is what has happened before every mass genocide. Again please have some foresight and let"s not let history repeat itself in America.

Guns are ABSOLUTELY 100% necessary for our safety and protection!!
or else we could end up with an oppressive government


"Nobody knows what can happen in twenty years." How about what's happening RIGHT NOW? Guns are killing hundreds and thousands of people every year!

The 2nd amendment was written in 1791. People didn't plan for these modern day weapons, like the AR-15, which shoots about six hundred rounds per minute.

Nobody will use nuclear weapons in a war? Are you for real? Precious Mr. Trump seems to sleep with his red button, and Kim Jong Un has a heavy finger. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a nuclear war, and arming citizens won't help in a situation like that.

Oppressive government? Mass genocide? I think, honestly, we're screwed either way.
Scenario A: citizens are stripped of their firearms, government kills 3/4 of the population. No more America.
Scenario B: citizens arm themselves with firearms, government gets scared, civil war breaks out, people fight amongst themselves, 3/4 of the population are killed in erratic gunfire. No more America.

See the similarities? If you want to deal in extremities, than so will I. America is in a dangerous spot, and guns aren't going to miraculously make everything better.

Guns NEED to be banned. Keeping them is a recipe for disaster.
Debate Round No. 4


But guns are saving MILLIONS a year. Again you haven"t respond to my Study that showed guns stop anywhere from 500,000 to 2,000,000 crimes EVERY YEAR!

At the time when the founding father wrote the Second Ammendment when there were guns like the Belton Flintlock, Giradoni Air Rifle, Puckle Gun, and Pepperbox Revolvers all of which would be banned by today"s gun laws. Every founding father knew about these and their destructive capabilities and still wrote the second Ammendment. Also it is not like the founding father were stupid. They knew that weapons would evolve. They had evolved during the fathers lifetime and before. From swords to bow and arrows, to metal swords, to cannons, to guns and behond. They second Ammendment was not just written for muskets, it was written for highly advanced weapons and it still applies today.

Governments turn oppressive all the time, again te me point out Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cambodia, Democratic Republicof the Congo. I"m not dealing in extremes I"m dealing in events that happen very often, and trying to not let our country repeat history. If every black slave had been armed with a gun there wouldn"t have been slavery. If every Jewish citizen had been armed, the Halucaust would not have happened, at least not to the extent it did. Guns protect citizens and keep the government in check. The second Ammendment is part of the system of checks and balances in our government
Scenario A: Government disarms citizens knew oppressive whilst limiting freedoms
Scenario B: Cotizens keep their guns and the government never become oppressive because of the armed backlash of the people
Scenario C: People keep there guns, the government tries to become oppressive and the people stand up and keep their liberties
I"d love to have Scanario B, but if need be I"ll fight for Scenario C, I just won"t let Scenario A happen. It"s a threat to me, my family, my friends, and this country which I love dearly.

Gun are foundational to this country and this countries values. Guns are also detrimental to the safety of citizens and limitation of the government

Mic Drop


Although you are correct when you say that guns prevent some amount of crime, that doesn't mean that running around arming citizens is going to miraculously solve everything.

Sure, if every Jewish person was armed with a gun during the Holocaust, then maybe more lives would have been spared. But the most likely scenario is that people would have been killed due to erratic gunfire. Unless citizens are well-trained and know how to properly and safely use a firearm to protect themselves, then they are useless.

I don't even consider your second argument about the founding fathers relevant. It contains nothing more than speculation and opinion, and I choose to overlook it. At least attempt to include some sort of facts.

Guns are not what this country needs. We need to stop losing innocent lives to bullets and DO SOMETHING! The NRA has this country in the palm of their hand, and yet you still try to defend them! from January 2007 to May 2018, there have been 61 mass shootings, averaging about 5.4 per year. This is getting out of hand. Guns do way more harm then good.

Let's work towards a gun-free America.

*mic drop*
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 18 records.
Posted by cole.bonds 3 years ago
Where are you guys' sources?
Posted by KingJDM 3 years ago
An AR-15 does not shoot 600 rounds per minute nor could you even pull a trigger 10 times in 1 second!
Posted by ILikePie5 3 years ago
The debate comes down to this: Do I have to justify a right?

If you're a liberal and you say yes, explain why we have the right to a fair trial. Key word being fair. If a person shows up with an illegally bought AR, then shouldn't I be able to have an AR to have an equal fighting chance?

If you're a liberal and you say no, then checkmate I don't have to justify why I have the right to bear arms.
Posted by ILikePie5 3 years ago
When the right to fair trial and against cruel and ununsuao punishment is taken away, people will realize why the 2nd Amendment was so high in the list.
Posted by Debating_Horse 3 years ago
God do I hate anti-gun idiots! >:( Among reasons I ABHOR liberalism and liberal policies/laws. Please hand the con person his a$$! Win this!
Posted by georgewashingdude 3 years ago
How do I get into this because this stuff about guns makes me mad. Like, people can still get guns, it's like drugs, they are illegal but people still find ways to get the and distribute them around the country.
Posted by nastykatt 3 years ago
"I will, once again, plead the argument that guns are easy to obtain. in states like Nevada, Virginia and even Florida, neither a waiting period or special permit are required. Private sellers are not legally obliged to perform any background checks. semi-automatic rifles are commonly used in mass shootings, and are one of the easiest guns to legally obtain."

Saying that this is a reason to ban guns is like saying that we should ban cars because Florida allows you to get a license without taking drivers ed. How about we let those states tighten background checks if they want to? That seems like a better solution than doing something on a federal level to remove citizens' freedoms.

Additionally, if anybody came to take my guns, they would be in violation of the second amendment AND laws against theft, giving me the right to shoot them in self defense. How do you like that for a debate? If you try to take my guns, I have the right to kill you with them. End of debate.
Posted by BOMJEG 3 years ago
I can't wait to see what snowflake picks this one up. XD
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.