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

Gun Bans

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,011 times Debate No: 24411
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




My position is that people should have the right to bear arms. Whoever disagrees with me can present their case. Let the debate begin.


I will accept as devil's advocate. I'm prepared for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Devils advocate. Its not as fun if your not truly against the right to bear arms. Anyways here we go.

First off my argument is for the country of America.

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That gives the right of American citizens to be able to bear arms without the government taking away that right.

The typical argument against "The right to bear arms" is that guns kill people. My argument is that guns don't kill people. Murderers kill people. Just because we have the right to bear arms doesn't mean we can shoot people or infringe on other peoples private property. As individuals we are given "life and liberty" as long as we don't take away other peoples life and/or liberty.

If a criminal wants a gun, he will get it. Regardless of what the law says. If the law is changed so that guns are outlawed, most likely the law abiding citizens won't have guns, but the criminals still will. So that would put those citizens in worse danger than they were before the prohibition of guns. We can not think of Gun prohibition as "Gun Control" but merely as "Victim disarmament."

Our founders gave us this right because they wanted the U.S. citizens to be protected against a possible future tyrannical government.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court.

Conclusion - We need the right to bear arms to protect ourselves against criminals/government.


Argument I: Guns Kill People

In 2008 there were 680 accidental deaths related to guns and an average of five children per day were involved in an accidental discharge of a firearm in the United States (1). Many of these children likely knew not what they were doing and therefore the discharge of the firearm infringes on their "life and liberty," as you so kindly worded it.

Argument II: Criminals will have Guns and We Will All Be Damsels in Distress

What police call "less lethal" options have decreased injuries to both the officers using them and the "criminals" that they were used on since they were adopted in NY and Boston (2). Weapons such as pepper spray have allowed officers of the law to more safely diffuse situations where a suspect was armed, many citizens have followed suit (i.e. women carrying pepper spray to the bar).

Argument III: We Need to be able to form a Militia to Battle our Tyrannical Government

This is not 1776 the last time I checked, please correct me if I am wrong. Any uprising a citizens militia could raise with the weapons afforded to them by current law would be stopped within seconds of its formation. How would these citizens handle the force of the United States Military? This isn't a matter of hiding in the woods from the British Empire and sneak attacking their camp. This is the twenty-first century, to assume that a citizens militia could even make the United States military pause is absolutely ridiculous so I won't even bother with further evidence or a source for this argument.

Conclusion - Con has not provided any reason that we, as citizens, should have the right to bear arms and I have shown that accidental shootings infringe on the affected parties rights and therefore their should be no right to bear arms.

Debate Round No. 2


Pro uses the argument that "Criminals will have Guns and We Will All Be Damsels in Distress"

Pros first argument is that there were 680 accidental deaths related to guns in 2008. Children had died. Let me show you how little that number is compared to many things that are legal in America. 13,846 people died from Alcohol abuse and drunk driving in 2008. But alcohol is perfectly legal. About 438,000 Americans die per year from smoking where 50,000 of them is from second hand smoking. But smoking is legal. Very well legal and regulated. To say that we need to take someone's gun away because it might kill someone is like saying that we need to cut everyone tounges out because someone might yell "fire" in a movie theatre.

Pro cannot proof that Gun Prohibition would prevent these Criminals from having guns and/or using them violently. There are many things that are prohibited such as drugs, free online music, littering, and etc. The point is that people still do those things, even though they are illegal. So how do we know that Gun Prohibition would be any different? Prohibition of something doesn't stop the use of it.

In his third argument rebutting my "We Need to be able to form a Militia to Battle our Tyrannical Government" He brings a logical argument. My argument is that I would rather have guns than not have guns in a situation like that. If we are in a police state we need every bit of resource to protect ourselves from Tyranny.


Con argues that 680 deaths are meaningless. I would like you to tell that one to the family members of those who died as a result. Next I accept that both alcohol and tobacco should also be banned therefore his argument holds no ground.

Con also chose to ignore that people could protect themselves by other means than firearms. He conceited this argument.

Con restated an argument that I already proved to be worthless "Guns protect us from tyrants."

Since Con bears the burden of proof here and I he has not presented any logical argument why Americans should have the right to bear arms you should vote pro. Also, I have given at least one reason why guns should be banned.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Contra 6 years ago
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 narrowly wins. I liked PRO's statement that this isn't 1776, but CON showed that gun bans wouldn't remove weapons from criminals, just citizens. If Pro had capitalized on other points, such as how much more effective pepper spray or an alternative was at defense rather than just saying they are an alternative, Pro would've likely won. Con also had a good slippery slope argument on tyranny, although that argument line is generally not the one to be focused on the most. Good debate.