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

Guns should be banned in the US even for cops

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: 3/18/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,138 times Debate No: 49404
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Look at how many guns deaths there are in 2013.
-------> <-------


It wasn't stated, but I assume R1 is for acceptance. I await my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


In England there are only about 20 gun deaths because they banned guns.


My opponent has argued that since banning guns, even for cops, will reduce gun deaths, that therefore we should ban them.

However, he does not source any of his claims that banning guns would reduce gun deaths.

Let's formalize his argument

P1: If banning guns decreases death, then guns should be banned.
P2: Banning guns does decrease death.
C: Guns should be banned.

In the form of a categorical syllogism..

P1: Whatever decreases deaths should be done.
P2: Banning guns, even for cops, decreases deaths.
C: Guns should be banned.

He's argued for Premise 2, but not Premise 1 of either of these arguments. Why stop with guns? Children drown in bathtubs. Why not ban bathtubs?

So my opponent has simply not defended the very controversial premises in his argument.
Debate Round No. 2


"Why stop with guns? Children drown in bathtubs. Why not ban bathtubs?"
How many deaths do guns cause to bathtubs? I already showed you how many die from guns now time for bathtubs. Only bout 350(says in website now lets compare that to gun deaths in my round 1.
Argument- Washington DC has a low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 because of strict gun control. Indianapolis "high" murder rate is just 9 per 100,000. If we don't this luntaic could go on a shooting spree. And we have had so many shootings in the US. A long time ago I was actually surprised when someone got shot. Now it is the usual. The more helpless you are the safer you are from killers. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defence! The army has hundreds of them.

Website used-
Good luck to my challenger.


So how many deaths does something have to cause before we ban it? What is the magic number? My opponent hasn't explained why guns should be banned, but bathubs shouldn't. He simply insists that they're different.

My opponent states that Washington DC has a low murder rate because they banned guns. Well, look, Indianapolis has a much lower murder rate, and guns aren't banned there. There aren't even bans on assault weapons in Indiana (1).

What basis do we have to believe that gangsters and shooters couldn't get guns if we banned them?

Also, if we banned guns from police officers, they wouldn't be able to enforce the law. What if there were a female police officer going up against an enormous gangster? What if the gangs still had guns, and the police don't?

Banning guns won't make guns magically disappear. Drugs are banned, but they still get into the US. So gangs will still have access to guns, and depriving police officers of guns will make them essentially ineffective.

What are you going to do when a gang member has a gun, and is shooting people, but none of the police officers have guns?

A Harvard Study concludes that there is no clear correlation with banning guns and with decreases in murder, suicide, etc. (2)

My opponent simply hasn't met his burden, and what he's arguing for has absurd consequences.

Debate Round No. 3


Note- Do you know that wikipedia is a unreliable source. It says right here So that most defiantly brings you down on most reliable sources especially in R2 you never put your sources.

Also, if we banned guns from police officers, they wouldn't be able to enforce the law. What if there were a female police officer going up against an enormous gangster? What if the gangs still had guns, and the police don't?

I am sorry what part of banning guns did you not get. They should not have guns and police officers would carry a weapon still. I never said they could not. Just no Guns.



My opponent says wikipedia is an unrealiable source... and he goes on to use Yahoo! answers to prove this. I'm not sure if this is meant to be a joke. Anyways, if you want a source other than wikipedia for Indiana state laws, look here:

Banning guns will not necessarily make guns impossible to obtain. Many drugs are illegal, but they're very easily obtained. What makes my opponent think that guns will be any different? Most guns gangsters use are bought illegally anyways (1).

But if gangsters have guns, and police officers don't, then police officers will probably be shot down by gangsters. What is the police officer going to do? Taze a bunch of gangbangers? I doubt it.

Debate Round No. 4


i_know_all_and_i_will_win forfeited this round.


FF. My opponent has not met his resolution. I've shown that banning guns from police officers would result in making them ineffective against criminals who would be able to get guns. Banning guns would not make guns impossible to obtain, just like banning drugs does not make them impossible to obtain. Criminals will still get the guns, and police officers won't have them.

Vote Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by IwinYoulose333 6 years ago
So you say you think guns should be banned, but what about criminals. Even if guns were banned, criminals aren't just going to say, "aw shucks it looks like I'll have to quit shooting people, or stealing guns, or illegally buying guns, are possessing guns, or etc. etc. etc." I mean they're already breaking the law for various other reasons, why and how would banning guns force them to stop?
Posted by i_know_all_and_i_will_win 6 years ago
LOL it was a joke. Good you understood it.
Posted by Tucker_96 6 years ago
So what you are saying is take away all guns in the U.S. right? What will this solve? We saw in the 18th amendment that taking away something that the U.S. citizens have a right to they fight back and people die. The U.S. lost millions of dollars because of the 18th amendment people died and congress was forced to repeal it. The guns that gang bangers are using we obtained illegally anyways so what will be stopping them when they are banned?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by IwinYoulose333 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 Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brings up a interesting debate, but his arguments begin as mere statements, and do not have much backbone.

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