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

Should Guns be Banned?

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: 3/6/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 428 times Debate No: 120659
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)



My position is that banning guns and even Assault Rifles. This is a very complicated subject. So lets clear some things up.

The correct measurements needed for gun control, We need

Written Test
Shooting Test
Reason for purchase
Mental Health Screening

Second Amendment: 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.

Gun crime statistics:https://www. Nij. Gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome. Aspx


Ur pp is small, Therefore ur argument is invalid
Debate Round No. 1


Well, I guess I'm facing a troll. Anyway, I will still present my case.

1) Guns are not harmful. Statistically, Guns are actually less dangerous than cars. They are 70 Million people who own firearms and barely anybody commits crime with it.

2) Guns do not deter Suicide.
"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. Japan has a low gun ownership rate at 0. 6 guns per 100 people and a high suicide rate of 18. 41 suicides per 100, 000 people in 1997 (ranking it 11 out of 71 countries). South Korea has a low gun ownership rate (1. 1 guns per 100 people) but has a high rate of suicide and the highest rate of gun suicides (12. 63 per 100, 000 people in 1997). By contrast, The United States has the 26th highest suicide rate (12. 3 suicides per 100, 000 people in 2011) and the highest gun ownership rate (88. 8 guns per 100 people). Jim Barrett, The author for TheTruthAboutGuns. Com, Stated, "the theory that the restriction or elimination of guns would have a positive effect on the overall suicide rate in the U. S. Does not hold up under scrutiny. "

3) More guns, Less crime
A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, Between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders. "While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, The murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr. , PhD, Author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. . . The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, The number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent. " A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law" Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, Criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job. . . As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, Only outlaws will have guns. '" Britain banned guns and saw an increase in gun crime by double the percentage. "

3) The Purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure the security of the free state. Germany in 1933 under Hitler took the guns and look what he was able to do. Countries today that don't have high gun ownership were easily conquered by the nazis. Why has Switzerland not been invaded all this time. They have high gun ownership.

I will list sources in last argument.
Debate Round No. 2


This is a great website
Debate Round No. 3


Ur momma gay
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 12InchBeef 3 years ago
I mean just because someone is a troll doesn't automatically make someones argument invalid. I mean in my time on this website iv'e seen some trolls actually make better arguments than the person their debating.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
@Dr. Franklin

Your a trash debater. If Pro was not a troll I would vote for him. Your entire argument is lifted from somewhere else.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one to actually provide an argument. He had better conduct, made less spelling/grammar mistakes, made arguments, and used sources. Pro failed in all aspects of voting. I know Pro is a troll but this troll gave con a win.

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