The Instigator
Con (against)
Anonymous
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
DumplingDebate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Banning guns

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Anonymous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 120187
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Con

I think banning guns is the wrong way forward. My proposal

Shooting test
Written Test
Background checks
Mental Health Screening
Interviews with family members

Is the necessary measurements for gun control.

Good luck to my opponent and I look forward to this debate. The floor is yours to present your thesis/main statement.
DumplingDebate

Pro

I believe that guns should be banned.

You may say that guns are not all harmful and can do good things like hunting.
However, Only 4. 2 % hunt and there are many farms that can provide us meat.

Also, The shooting test, Written test, Background checks, Mental health screening, And interviews with family members may not help because people could suddenly become different and become assassins.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1

Con

Now my 1st argument ironically is that guns are not harmful.

There are 70 million gun owners in America. Less than 0. 25 percent of those people commit crimes with guns. If you compare that to cars you actually get that you are safer next to somebody with a gun then you are driving.
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Gun_ownership
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U. S. _by_year(Wikipedia is 95% correct)

Now my proposals are the same required by Japan and Switzerland. Both countries have VERY low crime rates. Japan has 10 gun murders per year. No one invades Switzerland because of their secret army. Their guns.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to face tyrannical governments.

You know why:
Hitler took the guns
Stalin took the guns
Mao took the guns

While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, The murder rate decreased.

States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes

Britain took the guns and saw double the gun crime in 6 years and violent crime is going up.

Lithuania has one of the world's lowest gun ownership rates (0. 7 guns per 100 people) but its suicide rate (by any method) was 45. 06 per 100, 000 people in 1999, The highest suicide rate among 71 countries with available information.

Those are my opening statements. I have more arguments but I would like to see what you have.

Two questions for you

If guns existed in the past, Why are we only seeing them now?

What is your solution to disarming between 325-392 MILLION guns.
DumplingDebate

Pro

Yes, Only 0. 25 percent of gun owners may commit crimes, But they are dangerous and people were accidentally shot and killed because of other reasons other than crime.
(Wikipedia cannot be cited not because it is incorrect but because it is a gateway source)

Yes, Japan and Switzerland may have crime rates but Honduras has 60 in total per 100, 000 people.
Also, There are other ways to defend yourself, Like shields. You may say that guns can go through shields but if guns are banned, There won't be any guns to go through shields.

The Second Amendment was created to give the right of bearing arms to citizens, Not to face tyrannical governments. Besides, The Second Amendment is flawed because if every one had guns, It would be easier to cause gun violence.

The murder rate decreasing does not have to do with guns. It may have went down due to more justice

What is your source for the states with the largest amount of gun has the lowest gun violence?

About the Britain argument, Doesn't that favor the con?

What do you mean we see them now?

Also, I never said about disarming everyone.
Debate Round No. 2

Con

So people who drive cars are dangerous. Most car fatalities are accidental. Wikipedia can be cited because it lists its sources and 95% of it are correct. Honduras is an undeveloped country so it is unfair to compare.

Criminals will find a way. Mass shootings have been committed with illegally-bought weapons. Banning guns wouldn't have stopped 9/11, The unibomber, Or The Boston Bombing. There are also knives that criminals to use and taking guns away from good people is not necessary.

The Second Amendment gave us guns because they feared a rising power in this country. Do you know who did not fear that?

Jews in Germany in 1933. Russian civilians under Stalin.

More Justice? Elaborate. You also said that it may be meaning you don't know.

John R. Lott, Jr. , PhD, Author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws-source

No Britain banned guns, Saw more violent crime.

Sorry but I meant

If guns existed before, Why are we only seeing school shootings now?

No, You are for banning guns so how de get rid of them?
DumplingDebate

Pro

It is true that most car crashes are not meant to happen but guns are more fatal than car crashes.
Okay, Fine, I won't compare gun violence to Honduras. But still, There are countries like Brazil that has high gun violence rates.

It does say "for the security of the free State" in the Second Amendment but it is not referencing a possible rising power but is referencing criminals. Besides, Only armies and governments can deal with rising powers. Citizens would be petty in stopping the rising power.

Again, More guns don't have to do with the decreasing murder rates. It could be the laws or it be because of being more organized. I said "may be" because there could be more reasons other than more justice.

Yes, Britain has banned handguns but it did not ban sporting guns which are still able to use for murder.

School shootings has existed since the 19th century

How to disarm the whole population of the US: Make a law to submit their guns. If they don't, Search their house.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3

Con

"It is true that most car crashes are not meant to happen but guns are more fatal than car crashes. "
Again, Compare the two statistics and guns are less dangerous than cars. The key to Brazil is poverty and drugs.

"The free state" is different from the people. The rising anti-slavery power in the U. S happend and then the civil war. (not defending the South).

There is multiple examples that less guns = more crime. Britain banned guns-more violent crime and doubled the crime. Since you used Brazil, Mexico has no guns, HIGHEST crime rate in the world.

There is a movement to ban KNIVES in Britain now.

You say "School Shootings". But I mean not attempted or 1 to 2 deaths. The first school shooting happened in 1966. This leads to why guns are not the problem.

If less than 1% of gun owners resist, It is a near uprising.

Back to you
DumplingDebate

Pro

DumplingDebate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DumplingDebate 3 years ago
DumplingDebate
Srry for the forfeit, Couldn't see it. This is my fourth argument:

What are the two statistics between car crashes and the guns?

AGAIN, Violence rates are not based on guns.

You say that Britain banned its guns and doubled its crimes. Yes, But Japan banned them too, And is one of least violent countries in the world.

You can't ban knives because you need them to slice food. However, Guns are not essential for life.

According to your definition of a school shooting having more than 1 or 2 deaths, The first school shooting was on 1893, Which was on Plain Dealing High School, Plain Dealing, Louisiana.

It won't because only 1% of the whole population of the US is not a lot of people.
Posted by DumplingDebate 3 years ago
DumplingDebate
@omar2345

Sure, I will post sources
Posted by DumplingDebate 3 years ago
DumplingDebate
I just accepted this because I want to want to have fun debates and this one looks fun. I actually go against banning guns but just did pro cause 1) con is Dr. Franklin and 2) challenging myself to go against my opinions using evidence
Posted by Chronosofwisdom 3 years ago
Chronosofwisdom
I am a fellow Texan, And I believe that guns actually protect against gun crime. Theres a reason why texas is THE safest state (debatable). This video sums it up nicely: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=wAXxQBIfH7I
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I lied and here are my sources. Https://gun-control. Procon. Org/
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
My next argument will be posted after 4 tomorrow. Sorry for the wait.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Brendo

Click on add to my favorites.

Pro can you provide a source?
Either here in the comment section or in the next Round. If Con does also state statistics I also would like evidence either in the comment section or in the debate.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
(I"m just commenting so I can receive email updates)
Posted by kwbc 3 years ago
kwbc
Are you looking for someone who is for banning guns or against your proposals for gun control? I am against your proposals and believe that restrictions are anti constitutional
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 3 years ago
AnonymousDumplingDebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a very good job at rebutting pros arguments.

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