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

Banning the Sale Of Guns From Stores(REUPLDOAD)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
SupaDudz has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 713 times Debate No: 109852
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Since procrastination is a real issue here with SupaDudz. We will resume debate with Amph under same rules

Copy and past args from rounds 2 and 3


I accept this debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Round 2 Args Here
Thank you for accepting the debate! Here are the opening remarks
Florida. 17 dead from a mass school shooting. Another tragedy due to a man who possessed firearms. What have we learned since Colombine, Sandy Hook, and Texas. Nothing. The FBI knew about this attack 5 months ago, according to the LA TImes

" 'Im going to be a professional school shooter,' a person identifying himself as Nikolas Cruz wrote in a comment beneath another user's video in September. The declaration was so alarming """ so disturbing """ that the video's poster, Ben Bennight, who lives in Alabama, did what Americans are supposed to do. He called the Federal Bureau of Investigation to warn them. But following a brief investigation, officials later said, the FBI closed the case, after apparently failing to identify the person who'd made the comment. It would prove to be a missed opportunity of heartbreaking proportions."-LA Times

The FBI did nothing about this. We have learned that people can't be controlled with guns, so we need to remove them from our stores since our people can not be trusted with a firearm
Argument 1: Homicide By Shootings

Just look at these numbers and you will be compelled. Gun Violence has increased. We have gun laws that seem to have no use what so ever. They have provided no use in stopping mass shootings in 2017 and now 2018. These laws accomplish nothing. The extreme is the best option we can go. If these laws and police sanctions can't solve, the homicide rate increases as we seen with the owning of guns increased


This source says 30% of people own and out of the 69% that do own guns, 32% would consider owning a guns

We continually see this trend increasing and the homicide rate has increased due to gun ownership. We see a correlation with the statistics
Argument 2: The SQuo fails

Background checks have failed completely and have prevented any attacks to happen
Let's look at some background info


Now, we see, only background checks are runs are through FFL. What about the other people that sell guns in stores not by FFL. These are how mass murders get their hands on guns. Florida, Las Vegas, and Texas, are great example of the system failing. The government knew they had guns and we're planning to shoot up. There provisions did absolutely nothing. In Vegas, some even say they KNEW he had a blueprint to shoot up the place. Yet, there was nothing done.
Argument 3: Self Defense

I agree. You should be able to defend yourself. But there are so many options to self defense. I will list a couple

-Tae Kwon Do

There are so many other options to defending yourself. If we get rid of the weapons in general, then these things will come to play. We don't need guns to defense.


This site lists 9 Ways to Defend Yourself w/o a gun! it's simple.
Let's conclude.

We should never fear for our life when we are in school, or enjoying yourself. This Florida shooting should be last we hear. Too many people have died from gun violence.

I would like to say a prayer from the Psalm 86 for the victims of this Florida shooting

Listen to me, Lord, and answer me,
for I am helpless and weak.
2 Save me from death, because I am loyal to you;
save me, for I am your servant and I trust in you.

3 You are my God, so be merciful to me;
I pray to you all day long.
4 Make your servant glad, O Lord,
because my prayers go up to you.
5 You are good to us and forgiving,
full of constant love for all who pray to you.

6 Listen, Lord, to my prayer;
hear my cries for help.
7 I call to you in times of trouble,
because you answer my prayers.

8 There is no god like you, O Lord,
not one has done what you have done.
9 All the nations that you have created
will come and bow down to you;
they will praise your greatness.
10 You are mighty and do wonderful things;
you alone are God.

11 Teach me, Lord, what you want me to do,
and I will obey you faithfully;
teach me to serve you with complete devotion.
12 I will praise you with all my heart, O Lord my God;
I will proclaim your greatness forever.
13 How great is your constant love for me!
You have saved me from the grave itself.
14 Proud people are coming against me, O God;
a cruel gang is trying to kill me"
people who pay no attention to you.
15 But you, O Lord, are a merciful and loving God,
always patient, always kind and faithful.
16 Turn to me and have mercy on me;
strengthen me and save me,
because I serve you just as my mother did.
17 Show me proof of your goodness, Lord;
those who hate me will be ashamed
when they see that you have given me comfort and help

I pray for the future...


The Florida shooting was truly devastating and I agree our country needs better gun control. The FBI should have followed procedure when Nikolas was reported and maybe it would have saved us all the heartbreak and violence, however, I do not agree that banning forearms from stores is the solution.

Essentially, this is your argument summed up: Since people cannot be trusted with guns, homicide rates increase with gun ownership,the status quo fails, and there are other ways to defend yourself, we need to ban guns from stores.

I disagree largely with you because the problem is not that we let people buy guns. Though there are several. One of them being the type of guns we allow people to buy. The Florida shooter was a 19-year-old kid using an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. Why does anyone need a semiautomatic rifle? These are military grade weapons we are letting people purchase. I think that it is perfectly fine to have a handgun (not semiautomatic) but allowing people to buy weapons used in the military is just absurd. Anyone who says they need a military weapon to protect them self from a robber is lying. What we need to do is to ban these types of guns from being purchased by civilians.

Another problem is that a lot of states have awful gun regulation. People often say that we can stop gun violence by giving good people guns so they do not have strict or well-regulated gun laws, however this has never been proven to work, at least not on a large scale. "...lax laws too often make it easy not only for good guys to get guns, but also for bad guys to get guns. The evidence is overwhelming that overall more guns and more relaxed gun laws lead to more violent deaths and injuries. One study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that a gun in the house was associated with an increased risk of a gun death, particularly by suicide but also apparently by homicide."
If we strengthen gun laws and close loopholes, we can combat this. You also mentioned how we have background checks which do not work. The problem is not that background check are bad, the real problem is that currently, they are not strong enough.

"Now, we see, only background checks are runs are through FFL. What about the other people that sell guns in stores not by FFL. These are how mass murders get their hands on guns. Florida, Las Vegas, and Texas, are great example of the system failing."
I think it is also important to know that background checks, while have much room for improvement, cannot solve for gun violence on their own. That is why we need to improve all aspects of our gun laws.

I really have trouble with your self-defense argument. You say it is easy to learn the following:
-Tae Kwon Do

All of those except for the knife and intimidation are unlikely to be learned by everyone. Why? because you have to get training for that sort of thing, which costs a lot of money and time. My sister is doing mixed martial arts right now and we pay 1000 dollars a year for it. Most people cannot afford something so costly. Regarding intimidation, using a knife, and the 9 ways to defend yourself those can be used for defense but there is one big problem which I will explain now.

If we ban guns from stores it will push them into the black market. Most people (not all of course) buy their guns legally. If buying guns from stores becomes illegal, they will only be available in the black market. Who uses the black market? Bad people (and maybe some good people but mostly bad). So now, good people do not have guns and bad people do. What is the significance of this? If I am in my home and a robber with an illegal gun invades, I cannot intimidate him, I cannot point a knife at him...he has a gun. I am not saying people need a semiautomatic rifle to shoot the guy,I am not even saying I should use my pistol to shoot the guy necessarily (unless they shoot first), I am saying having a pistol provides security in a home. If we push guns to the black market, largely bad people will have access to them which is danger to us all.

Also, take the Prohibition for example. When Alcohol was banned, what happened? It was pushed into the black market and the mafia became rich selling it. Or take how the U.S. refuses to get rid of all of its nuclear weapons. The reason being that if the U.S. has no nukes, countries that hate us like North Korea will have an advantage over us. They can send nuclear weapons our way and we cannot send them back We could still wage war (and use our other aspects of military) but without equal ground, the bad guys have a higher chance of winning.

You are 1000% right that we should never fear for our lives when we are in school. School shootings should NOT be a regular thing. However, banning guns from stores is not the right solution.

(Also, it is a little misleading when you keep saying the FBI knew the attack was going to happen. They knew Nikolas was saying disturbing things and yes, they should have looked into it more, but they did not know the attack was going to happen.)
Debate Round No. 2


Round 3 Args

Let's get this show on the road

You say we should be able to use handguns. But that has to lead to a mass shooting

Christopher Harper-Mercer and his family members legally purchased the handguns and rifle he used in the Umpqua Community College shooting from a federally licensed gun dealer, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. mass shooting as well. Pistols, pumps, and hand shotguns have all caused mass shooting"

He caused so much damage with a handgun! 10 dead is a staggering amount for a handgun, which you said was OK to own. How can we eliminate this problem when there are ways where criminals and lunatics can get their hands on these guns. Their parents got it LEGALLY!!

They sell AR-15's in stores as well. In fact, that's how most shooters got their guns. If you agree that's what they shouldn't be owned, then they need to get rid of it from stores completely! What you said here is in agreement with me!

WHY IN AGREEMENT: You claim that we need to stop people from having AR-15's. I agree. We can do that by removing them from our stores. This is the only way to solve this and no other way can stop it. Even handguns as I stated, were used in mass shootings. No one is safe, so we need to remove the problem now
Increased gun regulations won't help at all

This article I found sums it up perfectly

"Despite popular belief, in the last sixteen months since Newtown, the media has incorrectly portrayed the complicated and nuanced activity in fifty different state legislative bodies. The new laws have been tallied, and often, have been inappropriately equalized. Small bills which keep concealed weapons permit holders' information private have been categorized as having equal weight to sweeping new laws that require background checks and ban assault weapons."

"This sort of count treats all gun legislation as if it were equally meaningful, creating the false narrative that state gun laws have, on balance, loosened nationwide since Newtown."

Here is a list of the states with strict gun laws:

We still see 50% of those states have had more than a dozen killed in mass shootings. They have done nothing to stop the shootings. Even California ranked #1 in strict gun laws, has experienced 2 deadly mass shootings. The best solution is getting rid of guns from our stores.

Also, background checks don't do anything at all. Even if they go more in-depth with background checks, we can't control fate from happening. If someone seems clean and innocent, they have a chance of shooting up. The best solution is to remove them from being sold.
It's not fair to use personal examples in this debate. I was a green belt in karate (lol) and I have pretty good self-defence skills. Those defence mechanisms work just as well. Now...let's talk about your black market.

Increasing gun laws actually turn your argument here. Increasing laws means people with a clean background are able to buy the guns and sell them on the black market illegally. Take them away, well they can't get their hands on them which means these buyers are unable to get guns from stores.

Now you shift your argument about self-defence. There are many wikiHow's and martial arts videos about how to disarm a gun possessing criminal

Here is the wikiHow:

There are many videos by BLACK BELT SENSAI's about how to disarm. If you know how to do that, then if you grab a knife, they will leave you alone. Holding them down gives enough time to call 911 and get him arrested, simple. However, we don't need to worry about this situation if the black market can't get guns.

Your examples are very very bad(I am sorry)

There is no chance the U.S would remove the nuclear arsenal without other countries agreeing to. This is a ridiculous argument and therefore the logic is misleading.

This alcohol prohibition is a fallacy. Alcohol is easier to get on the black market compared to guns in general. It would be harder to obtain, therefore making it impossible to get.
The FBI could have prevented it from happening, that means all this would've been stopped, so they technically knew about it.


My opponent in his first argument argued that handguns caused a mass shooting. That is true but when I researched into the types of guns used (Glock 19 and Taurus PT24/7) I found out that they were both SEMIAUTOMATIC guns. I already stated in my Round 2 that people should be allowed to have handguns as LONG AS THEY ARE NOT SEMIAUTOMATIC. People should not be allowed to buy THESE types of guns. So YES, handguns caused a mass shooting but they were semiautomatic which I already stated should not be allowed to be bought by civilians.

I am only agreeing that we should ban military grade weapons such as semiautomatic rifles. This does not mean I agree with banning ALL guns from stores.
My opponent also argued that gun regulation won't help, citing an article. However, a recent study has shown that better gun regulation does in fact help.

"As the US continues to stall on gun control talks, the largest study ever conducted on the topic has found a clear link between firearm regulation and fewer gun-related deaths around the world. Until recently, studies on gun laws have been limited to just one city or country, and have failed to reach consistent conclusions. But in 2016, researchers took a broader view - the team reviewed 130 high-quality studies conducted in 10 countries over the past 60 years...

"Across countries, instead of seeing an increase in the homicide rate, we saw a reduction," lead researcher Julian Santaella-Tenorio from Columbia University told Zack Beauchamp over at Vox. To figure this out, Santaella-Tenorio and his team systematically analysed 130 studies that had been conducted across 10 different countries, including the US, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, and Austria...

After analysing all of these studies, the researchers came up with three conclusions:
It usually takes major legislation overhaul - not just one new law - to see significant change.
Restricting access to guns and their purchase is associated with reductions in firearm deaths.
Individual studies need to be better executed and planned in future to get more convincing results."

This goes perfectly with I am saying and you as well. You mentioned how more firearms equals more death. Thus by logic, banning CERTAIN firearms and making it harder to get other types firearms (not impossible) equals less death. It also goes well with what I am saying which is that we need to fix ALL aspects of our gun laws and regulation. Not just background checks or just one loophole in the system. We need to do it all.

I wasn't able to use your link (the Deseret one) but just because California is number 1 does not mean anything. For one, this is just compared to the rest of the U.S. which still has lax laws. Federal gun control is still restrictive and as I said we NEED a overhaul. Also, regarding the background checks, we need to fix all aspects. Not just background checks.

The best solution is NOT to remove guns from stores.
You said it isn't fair to use personal examples in this debate. i don't understand why but I will refrain from this in the future. However, you must understand I was trying to make a point. You seem to think it is SO easy to just learn self-defense because of YouTube. The problem with this is just because you can learn something on YouTube doesn't mean you can do it well. I do not care if it is a black belt teaching you, it is not the same as being in person, especially with something like self-defense where technical aspects are incredibly important for performing a move. There is another element to detail you cannot get from a video.

Also you just used a personal example: "I was a green belt in karate (lol) and I have pretty good self-defense skills." But never mind that, I am not saying mixed martial arts are a bad defense. I am saying that it is hard to learn them AND be good enough to stop a criminal. Especially one with a gun! It takes a lot of time. I can't expect to be good after two weeks which goes well with my next point which is money. Learning self-defense is expensive. To be good, I would have to take it for a while which is costly. Not everyone can afford it.

You argue that if we take guns away, people can't get their hands on them. As i have already said, this is not true. If they are pushed onto the black market, people will get them!

You keep framing disarmament like it is easy to learn. Watching something on YouTube is not the best way to learn. I don't care if you practice on your mom, it's not the same as when a robber WITH A GUN comes into your home and points it at you. What are you going to do? Run at the robber and hope they don't shoot before you reach them? What are the odds the robber is going to stand next to you so you can disarm them? Highly unlikely.

You don't seem to understand how the black market works. Just because guns are banned form stores does not mean they are unavailable. For one, if we ban guns, America still has 300 million guns bought before the ban that are circulating through the country. So the guns we already have can be used in the black market. I buy a gun that you had before the ban and then I sell for more to other people--illegally of course. But let's say hypothetically that the U.S. managed to get all these guns and confiscate them (highly improbable), people still will just buy guns from outside the U.S. and bring them here. People smuggle. People bring things in illegally all the time. What makes you think guns will be different?

"The FBI could have prevented it from happening, that means all this would've been stopped, so they technically knew about it."

This is a fallacy. They could and should have followed protocol, they could have prevented it BUT they did not know. They did not know literally and they did not know technically. It is that kind of misleading language that fuels conspiracy theories like "Bush knew about 9/11". Stop saying that.
Debate Round No. 3


You say handguns aren't committed in mass shootings. While they not be committed directly to mass shootings, handguns are commonly used in homicides which happen nearly everyday day in America. There are still lives being lost in America due to due handguns. Eliminating semis won't stop mass shootings and homicide in America, which I stated happens.

Limiting Kritik:

1) Limiting the topic to semi-automatic is bad conduct in the debate. This is an excuse to not do hard research in this debate
2)CON says only ban military grade guns. This limits PRO in this debate when the topic addresses all guns. Vote PRO on limits
3) Limiting the topic makes the debate unfair and is cheating because of you can't just say "I agree on this type of gun, but not all." It is unfair

Your evidence is from ScienceAlert. No problems here.

However, most of your positive stats have come from the other countries you have specified. This can not be applied to a debate in the U.S.A. Some places have different types of government, police regulations, and safety laws in place.

Your Conclusions Are Summed Up As This

-dedicating an entire term to gun control laws
-having guns, but restricting them to certain people which doesn't matter
-these studies are bull and need more evidence

Now here are my answers.

1 No politician is going to mass overhaul an entire law, let alone one of the first 1o amendments. Even if you look at the prohibition ban, the 18th amendment, they removed the bill in one amendment, the 21st. Politicians will not dedicate 2-4 years of their time on one bill when there are many issues to resolve across the globe. It is unreasonable.

The plan is reasonable because it is one law. One law will lead to politicians being happy and not wasting a term and doing more good things in their term

2 There are still ways that people will get around the regulations. It will be very easy to do that with the black market and even fake ID's. The list goes on. This will link to the black market argument.

3 We need more research on gun regulations. Proves point.

I did say that. The logic here is false. Read my first argument. Homicide will still happen and mass shootings too. Except without semi-automatic guns. Fixing all aspects of gun laws would go against just banning semis as that isn't fixing all. Get more evidence that gun control will fix any of this

Even if federal control is restrictive, states have their own regulations as well that are considered strict. Cali is #1 on the strict scale, yet they are home to some of the most deadly mass shootings
I was just refering to my personal example as what NOT to do. As I am saying I did take karate. Just clarifying and apologizing if it was unclear. That wasn't an argument I made.

To be good at it doesn't require TOO MUCH time. You can still be good at karate and have that capability to do something athletically even if it is not your style. You can also take boxing, and other MMA's if karate is too hard.

FIAT: If a criminal were to break into your house without a gun, there is nothing stopping you, yes you, from taking a household item like a knife or frying pan and fighting them with that.

But if a robber had a gun, there are ways you can disarm them. It is not like it is impossible. Even if you know how to fight a little, you can strip the dangerous weapon away from the person in possession. There are ways to do it and it is possible. Who knows, watching it on YouTube may save your life.
Let's face it. The shooters are STUPID. They got the guns from America and it will stay that way.
I doubt that a school shooter will take the effort to get one from Taiwan or China and order it here. With security monitoring and all that, it is Mission Impossible for that to happen.

300M guns before the purge. This good ol' argument that can be beaten in two sentences

Parents need to do a good job of raising their kid.
Kids need to occupy themselves with a good education.

It is stupid to believe that 1 out of 300M active guns will cause a school shooting with the right education. If you are a parent and know your child has mental issues then Jesus christ don't introduce them to it. It is a crazy thing parents do. They need to educate the kids into not doing that stupid crap.

The dealer would eventually get caught dealing. If he is a big-time dealer, his guns will get confiscated and that ruins the market for those buyers. They get it somewhere else, government tracks the buyer and seller and arrests them both. It is very simple
THEY COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT!!!! MY ENTIRE POINT!!! They had to chance too and didn't step up. They could have at least talked to him or asked him questions and looked into it.

Bush knew about 9/11 vs this argument is crap because there was evidence their that the FBI knew about this while not much with Bush
(Round 5 is concluding arguments)


Something interesting I just learned--most pistols and handguns are semiautomatic. I wasn't aware of this before but now I am. Banning all semis would basically be banning almost all guns which won't work at all.

Before I realized what a semiautomatic gun was, my argument was not intended to limit the debate so I could get out of research. I have the right to my opinion. If I felt that we should ban only semis, that's okay. And besides, it's not like I only debated semiautomatic guns. I engaged with your points so I feel like your "Kritiks" are kind of misguided. But anyway, my view is different now so here goes.

I believe that better regulation and control of guns is what we need. Not a million laws, but better laws.
"Your evidence is from ScienceAlert. No problems here." Sarcasm?

"This can not be applied to a debate in the U.S.A." Actually, one of the countries was America. This is from R3:

"...across 10 different countries, including the US, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, and Austria..."

I feel like you summed up my conclusions to fit your argument better...

1. This isn't actually what I said. I never mentioned dedicating a term to gun control laws. I said we need an overhaul. This is from my round 3 evidence:

"After analysing all of these studies, the researchers came up with three conclusions: It usually takes major legislation overhaul - not just one new law - to see significant change."

2. I never said that we should restrict guns to certain people but I'll talk about that soon.

3. Fine. Here's some more evidence:

1. "Making it easier to carry concealed guns increases the number of gun homicides.
States that have so-called right-to-carry laws require them to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who is allowed to own guns and meets the necessary conditions. Many people have argued that right-to-carry laws deter crime because there would be more armed people around to stop a shooter. Though that idea was supported by a controversial 1997 analysis, recent and more thorough analyses have found the opposite effect. One recent study found that such laws increased the rate of firearm homicides by 9% when homicide rates were compared state-by-state. That could be because confrontations were more likely to escalate to a shooting, or because there were more guns around that could be stolen, or some other factor."

If we made it harder to have a concealed gun, we would have lower homicide rates.

2. "Barring people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns has a huge effect on the number of gun deaths. The so-called Lautenberg amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act disqualifies people with a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence from buying or owning weapons. Researchers found that gun murders of female intimate partners decreased by 17% as a result of the amendment."

Barring people from guns works. People who are known to be irresponsible or dangerous shouldn't have guns. Murder rate decrease when we do.

3. "Laws that call for longer sentences for gun crimes also seem to help a little. Gun-robbery rates have gone down in states that have approved longer sentences for assault or robbery with a gun. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were 30 "add-on" sentencing laws calling for additional prison time for people convicted of robbery or assault with a gun. A 40-year-analysis found that gun-robbery rates dropped by about 5% in the years after the sentencing laws were enacted."

4. Gun Restraining Orders
"One policy idea, though, is being met with rare consensus by both advocates for gun control and gun rights: gun violence restraining orders (GVRO), in which law enforcement agencies, families and household members can quickly remove firearms from individuals deemed unstable or unfit to own them...

Although each case is different, they share a common thread: The gun owner"s behavior was irresponsible and potentially lethal, echoing countless news reports of similar situations in which shots were fired and lives were lost. Take that drunken target shooter firing away in his densely populated neighborhood: How often have you heard of a recklessly fired bullet penetrating a wall and killing a child?"

Okay, now on to rebuttals.

"Politicians will not dedicate 2-4 years of their time on one bill..."
I never said anything about a term but regardless, this argument could be used against you. What kind of Republican-controlled Congress would agree to ban all guns from being sold in stores? Such a bill wouldn't even be debated! These people get angry when you raise the minimum age for ownership, you think they're going to let you ban them completely from stores?

"2 There are still ways that people will get around the regulations." This can be applied to banning all guns--the black market is a way to get around it. But even then, making people show IDs is just one example of gun control. And with the evidence I provided, you can see there would be a lot more than just: "Hey you, show me your ID and I'll let you buy this gun."

"We need more research on gun regulations." See above. We already have researched gun control. Extend my Round 3 arguments. It works.

"...Cali is #1 on the strict scale, yet they are home to some of the most deadly mass shootings." Strict only compared to the rest of the U.S. And the rest of the U.S. is not the best scale to define strict on...

Okay, you have GOT to stop with this self-defense argument.
1. Learning MMA, Karate, Boxing and being good at it takes time. At least being able to fight a criminal (who could have a gun) takes time. It also costs money. Not everyone has this kind of money.
2. You could use a knife but what if they have a gun? Or better yet, what if they also have a knife? Yay, a knife fight.
3. You cannot ALWAYS disarm a robber. As I said, what if they are ten feet away and have a gun? What, are you going to run and take it away before they shoot you? I hope you're fast.

Not all shooters are stupid. In Florida, the guy pulled the fire alarm so he"d have an easy shot. Yes, that"s sickening but having a twisted mind doesn"t mean you"re dumb. Besides, you yourself opened up this debate to any kind of gun violence, not just school shooters. But here:

"Legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals. A June 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report states that "[a]lmost all guns used in criminal acts enter circulation via initial legal transaction." [18] Between 2005 and 2010, 1.4 million guns were stolen from US homes during property crimes (including burglary and car theft), a yearly average of 232,400."

Literally, if we ban guns from being sold in stores, we still have a circulating 300M guns. These guys could steal them. But even if you don"t buy that, it isn"t just school shooters who kill people with guns. Criminals and gang members get them illegally. And it could be from places like Mexico, not necessarily China or Taiwan"

I don"t get your argument. The shooter in Florida"s parents didn"t know he was so twisted. They thought he was sad, not evil. People learn about guns from places other than their parents. I certainly didn"t learn about guns from my mom. I got it from the media. You can"t just say: "Well yeah, we have a lot of guns but kids and parents need to be better."

"The dealer would eventually get caught"" Actually, our government is infamous for NOT tracking the people who buy guns (plus these guns are illegal so they wouldn"t be in the system under the criminals" names). People often look to Switzerland who records every gun purchase as opposed to the U.S. that isn"t too good at that.

Bush and 9/11
Let's just stop this arguing this.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Debating_Horse 1 year ago
-Tae Kwon Do

Really? How about of someone starts pelting freaking ROCKS at you to fight them? What if they use attack dogs? Literally there are other alternatives to weaponizing things, Banning guns simply won't solve anything.
Posted by Amphia 2 years ago
Did you give up or did you forget?
Posted by Outplayz 2 years ago
My god. Assault rifles, or more accurately rifles that shoot rounds that have distance, are needed in certain defense cases. What if a guy lives on a ranch? Rifles are much more accurate especially in a nervous situation. It is hard to shot with your hands shaking, it's a little easier with a rifle. Then there is hunting. Then there is the "militia" that should be well armed enough to be able to back up the military if ever needed. Just bc a gun is popular, and used more often in shootings, doesn't mean anything. It just means it is a popular gun. There are many rifles that shot a .223 round, common ar round. Do you ever see those rifles? Plus, there has been only 1k deaths since 1966! from mass shootings. In any case, it is still rare and i imagine that citizens being "Well" armed is what keeps that number low. Like the guy that shot the church shooter with his ar. He admitted that if it wasn't an ar, he couldn't have done it. Bc ar's are accurate and built for range. They are range fire arms... and, there are situations in self defense that a ranged fire arm is needed.
Posted by SupaDudz 2 years ago

Ik it is. I didn't stress it a lot in round 4 because i know it is a weak argument. But i do have some stuff
Posted by BiasedHuman 2 years ago
SupaDudz good points but I really do disagree with the whole argument how people could learn Karate or Martial arts because those take years of practice and against a gun they aren't effective. Just because one guy can do it in a video doesn't mean the rest of of can and what if the person you are trying to defend from isn't within hand to hand combat distance. I felt that this is your weakest argument.
Posted by Amphia 2 years ago
"In 2000, more than 25% of Swiss gun owners said they kept their weapon for military or police duty, while less than 5% of Americans said the same."

A percentage of their guns are only for military or police use. Not for recreation or protection. Compared to the United States' 5%.

That is directly from your link man....
Posted by Amphia 2 years ago
Did you even read the link you posted? You totally took it out of context. The article is saying that while people point to Switzerland, there are major differences between them and us. Also, the U.S. has 300 million guns compared to Switzerland's 2 million. We have waaaaayyyyyyy more than they do.
Posted by LogicalPen 2 years ago
In Switzerland, nearly everyone has a gun. There was one mass shooting in 2001, but there hasn't been one since. If nearly everyone has a gun, then the crime do-ers will likely back down, because they know that person probably has a gun.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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