The Instigator
Trumpispresident
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Adam_Godzilla
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should all Guns be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
13days23hours05minutes26seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 54 minutes ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 305 times Debate No: 118928
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)

 

Trumpispresident

Con

Okay lets get this started if anyone wants to go against me do it I'm up for a challenge even though I'm new at this don't show me any mercy so lets do this

First of all if we did ban guns what would stop the government from becoming tyrannical because if nobody owned guns the government could go in and kill anybody they want and not just the president but people in congress as well and just because somebody acts all nice during an election doesn't mean that they won't try to grab absolute power and if nobody owned guns not only the federal government could get tyrannical but also State governments and even if none of the governments get tyrannical it would still be the bloodiest war in American History trying to force every single gun owner to get rid of all of there guns and the Military might not agree some will but most probably won't so gun control is impossible without killing every single conservative in America and some on the left to
Adam_Godzilla

Pro

Minus conduct points for con for not putting in the resolution. What is your stance? By pure assumption, Your stance will either be: "some guns should not be banned" or "all guns should not be banned". Both are very different arguments. Your failure to be precise on which is your stance leads to, Again, Conduct points.

I assume you're talking about america.


"First of all if we did ban guns what would stop the government from becoming tyrannical"
First of all, A tyrannical government cannnot control the masses. There are 300 million americans against less than a million armed police.


"gun control is impossible"
It isn't. Australia banned guns fully in 1996. (https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia)
Debate Round No. 1
Trumpispresident

Con

You made some good points now back to debating I knew I forgot to put down my stance I think people who are mentally ill or have committed a serious crime shouldn't be allowed to own a gun but for people who are law abiding citizens should be able to own almost any type of gun they want I think there should be different licenses for different types of guns but banning all guns would be against the constitution. And I never said gun control was impossible I just said that it would be bloody and the hardest groups to take guns away from would be conservatives especially down south. And another thing The United States and Australia are two different countries with two totally different cultures and also it wouldn't be 300 million Americans because some of them support gun control so some would not own guns and some would support which would lead to a civil war. If we did ban guns what would stop killings sure there might not be any big shootings but criminals and gangs or even people who are mentally Ill or somebody at a school who wants to kill somebody could use a different weapon or get a smuggled in gun. Banning guns is one thing that could lead to the down fall of America I think we need more background checks before somebody can own a gun and I also think you should at least be 24 but the right to own guns is a right that all of us have and if you think that everybody in the united states especially conservatives would obey it your out of your mind
Adam_Godzilla

Pro

"I think there should be different licenses for different types of guns but banning all guns would be against the constitution"

This is already implemented! We don't even have a debate then.

"I never said gun control was impossible I just said that it would be bloody"

Still the same point. That was exactly my point. Australia did it. It wasn't bloody.

"The United States and Australia are two different countries with two totally different cultures"
I gave my case. Saying this doesnt argue anything. Apples and pineapples are totally different fruit. So what? They both taste good. At least I gave an example. You have no supporting evidence showing taking guns away will be bloody.

"wouldn't be 300 million Americans because some of them support gun control so some would not own guns and some would support which would lead to a civil war"
Completely irrelevant. My point was there's only a million armed forces. You haven't argued my point.
Anyway, What you're saying is purely hypothetical. And all I'm obliged to do is say: "i disagree".

"If we did ban guns what would stop killings sure there might not be any big shootings but criminals and gangs or even people who are mentally Ill or somebody at a school who wants to kill somebody could use a different weapon or get a smuggled in gun"

That's irrelevant. You just said it yourself, It would still stop killings anyway.

"but the right to own guns is a right that all of us have and if you think that everybody in the united states especially conservatives would obey it your out of your mind"

Sure. But 'banning all guns' is pretty vague. Every single gun? What if you could own a gun if you were a professional huntsman?

This is my point, From the very start, Con never made clear the resolution, Who has what stance. I had to decipher it from the title. That's not part of the rules of debate. I think con already lost this debate. But for fun, I'll continue arguing.



Debate Round No. 2
Trumpispresident

Con

so you think that if something happens in another country with no violence the same would happen here that's the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Another thing that it would be bloody that doesn't mean it would be impossible it would just be difficult. Now let me ask you this isn't banning guns against the constitution and now just because there are only a million armed forces compared to 300 million Americans who I stated would not all be together because if you look at the news you would see most on the left would willfully give up there guns or force conservatives to and the only million armed forces I mentioned have more high class weapons and if the government wanted to they could use military weapons to force them to and this would lead to war. And do you honestly think that the left would let huntsman keep there guns no and the people who want to ban guns think all guns are evil. And at the end you said I never stated my stance so I will tell you again I think we need more background checks and make it harder for criminals to get guns but all you've been stating is that it could work you never said why it would be a good idea while I'm here stating why it would be a bad idea
Adam_Godzilla

Pro

Conduct points to con for calling my counter stupid.

"so you think that if something happens in another country with no violence the same would happen here "
Where's your argument?

"Now let me ask you this isn't banning guns against the constitution"


1787 was when the constitution was written. 1892, Handguns were made. Back then, NOBODY thought it was possible to make such efficient weapons of mass destruction for everyone. I'm sure the founding fathers didn't think of the future. And if they were alive now, They would be shocked.

Military armed forces are not in the millions. I said police were. Police don't have advanced weapons.

"all you've been stating is that it could work you never said why it would be a good idea while I'm here stating why it would be a bad idea"

I don't need to advocate and prove gun control. You have the BOP (burden of proof). I'm just here to refute and counter your arguments. But ok, Strict gun control is good because Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since it implemented gun control in 1996. Not. One. *I can't put my source here, Just google it*
Debate Round No. 3
Trumpispresident

Con

Oh the Constitution was made in 1787 so we should just forget about it are founding fathers weren't idiots they knew the people needed the rights to own guns to protect themselves. And if you look at the United States murder rates it's been decreasing since 1994 all you've been stating was facts from Australia and I looked at a list of all mass shootings in the United States and 146 of them have nobody killed and only 8 have at least 7 people killed so no the United States does not have a gun problem I got this evidence from Gun violence Archive. I know school shootings and mass shootings are bad but if we ban guns all together what will stop other crimes like rape for example imagine there's a women in her house and see she's a man outside trying to break into her house she could call the cops but she wouldn't know how long it would take them and if the man got in before the cops got there she would have almost nothing to defend herself is she had a gun she would be able to defend herself. I know the cop could have got there but you got to think about this not everybody lives in big cities. If nobody owned guns it would be easier for cops to oppress minorities because a cop attacks a black man and the black man has the nothing to protect him and the cop shots the black man and kills him. And Australia's homicide rate was already decreasing before they banned guns. And since you keep stating that Australia homicide rate I'm going to use another country to Switzerland a country with the least gun laws in the world hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001 and all men between the ages of 18 and 34 are given a gun and trained if we adopted Switzerland's gun laws it would work a lot better for both sides rather then taking away guns by force
Adam_Godzilla

Pro

"Oh the Constitution was made in 1787 so we should just forget about it arefoundingfathersweren'tidiotstheyknew the people needed the rights to own guns to protect themselves. "

Read my argument again. You didn't get the point.

"all mass shootings in the United States and 146 of them have nobody killed and only 8 have at least 7 people killed so no the United States does not have a gun problem I got this evidence from Gun violence Archive"

Con thinks gun violence is only a problem if someone is dead. I'm sure the readers know very wellthere's shootings every year in the US.

And Australia hasn't had ONE death from mass shootings since 1996. (source, Look it up, DDO crashes if i put it here)

Look at this statistic:

Guns per capita inAustraliaandUS: 1996 vs now

Australia

1996: Approximately 17. 5 guns per 100 people
2016 (most recent numbers available): About 13. 7 guns per 100 people

United States
1996: Approximately 91 guns per 100 people
2009 (most recent numbers available): Approximately 101 guns per 100 people



(source: look it up)


Gun control WORKS.


"imagine there's a women in her house and see she's a man outside trying to break into her house she could call the cops but she wouldn't know how long it would take them and if the man got in before the cops got there she would have almost nothing to defend herself is she had a gun she would be able to defend herself. "

That woman has no chance of killing these men because guess what? They have guns too. Probably assault riffles if they're criminals. That woman would come out of her door with a thousand bullets. It would probably punch through the walls too, Kill the family dog, Blow out a tire. Idk. But people always forget that when you arm civillians, You're arming criminals too.

"it would be easier for cops to oppress minorities because a cop attacks a black man and the black man has the nothing to protect him and the cop shots the black man and kills him. "

Who said the cops would have guns. In the UK, Cops do not carry guns.

"Australia's homicide rate was already decreasing before they banned guns"
Sure. But gun control decreased gun violence multi-fold and that's a fact.


"Switzerland a country with the least gun laws in the world hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001 and all men between the ages of 18 and 34 are given a gun and trained if we adopted Switzerland's gun laws it would work a lot better for both sides rather then taking away guns by force"

Australia is more similar to the US than Switzerland is. That's why I used it as an example. Switzerland might as well be a heaven. It's almost a perfect country. It has the highest "happiness" rating in the world. It's a very well structured, Well built, Well-governed country where everyone is well fed and everything is awesome. Until the US gets to this level, It really should implement gun control.

I'm sure you've never been a victim of a mass shooting. I'd like you to hear the stories of the kids who've been traumatised by some idiot with a gun. Or about how one drunk teenager accidentally used a shotgun to blow his brother's brains out. It doesn't matter if the guns belong to a psychopath or a normal person. Human beings make mistakes all the time. Those mistakes are costly. And until our family members are affected, We don't really care about these small costs.

I'd like the voters to think about that.
Debate Round No. 4
Trumpispresident

Con

"Con thinks gun violence is only a problem is someone is dead. I'm sure the readers know very well there's shootings every year in the US. Yes I know there are shootings every year and I think gun violence is a problem but the same could be said for stabbings. People getting injured in shootings is bad but if no one is killed it's not a mass shooting.

Australia
1996: Approximately 17. 5 guns per 100 people
2016: (most recent number available): About 13. 7 guns per 100 people

United States

1996: Approximately 91 guns per 100 people
2009 (most recent number available): Approximately 101 guns per 100 people

You forgot to mention one little thing when Australia banned guns almost nobody in the country owned guns and 90% of the country agreed to gun control that's the only reason it worked. In the United States even back in 1996 almost everybody owned a gun. For gun control to work in the United States every single citizen would have to agree to it and if you think they would I bet you never been down south. Unless the government used force on it's citizens gun control wouldn't work because gun control is impossible in the United States

"Australia is more similar to the US than Switzerland is. " Yes I never said it was all I said was that it's gun laws would be the better option rather then taking them away by force. What would you do if you were a law abiding citizen who owned a gun but never killed anyone and only used it for hunting then all of a sudden a cop came banging on your door demanding for all of your guns. If you were like most Americans who own a gun (which you probably don't) you would say no and tell the cop that he can't take them. If we sacrifice our freedom for safety we will soon have no freedom it doesn't matter if your safe if you have no freedom and taking guns away is the first step in taking away freedom. The Australian Constitution never had anything about guns the American constitution does and it says "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. " Just because it was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's wrong Democracy was made a long time ago but I guess that means it's bad to. If we ban guns people will just say oh Knifes are bad to and then they would ban all knifes and so on until no one had any weapons except for the government. We might be safe with gun control but if we get rid of our freedom we will become slaves to the government we don't need gun control we need to make it harder for criminals or people who aren't ready for a gun to get one what we need is more background checks. Freedom is the most precious thing of all and if we let them take away some of our freedom they can't take away all of our freedom
Adam_Godzilla

Pro

I want to say I really respect that Con put effort into this debate. I thought he would forfeit but he has continued to argue like a true debater. For that reason, I won't argue very harshly this round as I want con to grow as a debater in future debates.


"People getting injured in shootings is bad but if no one is killed it's not a mass shooting."

What con is talking about is a mass killing. A mass shooting, literally by its name, indicates a shooting of more than one person -

"A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple participants of firearms-related violence" - https://en.wikipedia.org...


"You forgot to mention one little thing when Australia banned guns almost nobody in the country owned guns"

The US has a higher household to gun ownership ratio yes, but Australia's gun ownership was not nothing. It was roughly 1/6 households (https://www.gunpolicy.org...)


I regret to say this but the burden of proof is on Con. It is always on the creator of the debate unless con states otherwise. Con negates the idea of banning all firearms, but fails to provide proof that banning all firearms in the US would cause havoc. Con relies heavily on the logic that because people are not willing, that the ban wouldn't work. Con doesn't recognise that we don't know what will happen, because gun banning has never been properly implemented in the US.

Con makes a fatal mistake:

Banning guns would cause violence =/= banning guns won't work.

The =/= sign means it does not equal to. Perhaps it will be difficult and challenging to implement such strict gun laws, but that doesn't mean in the long run that it won't work.

""Australia is more similar to the US than Switzerland is. " Yes I never said it was all I said was that it's gun laws would be the better option rather then taking them away by force"

Con completely misses my point. I said Switzerland's gun laws work BECAUSE it's almost a utopian country. And Con, your proposed gun laws are ALREADY being implemented. Don't you know that the US already does background checks on its gun owners?

Con goes on to talk about freedom and that taking guns away takes away freedom. This makes no sense. I'm not allowed to own a bazooka because holy **** that would be dangerous. So are firearms. I don't go around the street being angry that the government disallows me to have bazookas. I am not strawmanning here, I am using a valid analogy. Freedom is inherently limited in a constructed society.

"If we ban guns people will just say oh Knifes are bad to and then they would ban all knifes and so on until no one had any weapons except for the government."

This is what's called in debating, a slippery slope fallacy. It is where an argument goes on and on with causal links that have no or not enough evidence to back them up. As you can imagine, it's a slippery slope.

Who would say knives are bad and therefore we'd have to ban knives? Knives are important for cooking food, you have no basis for that argument.


" what we need is more background checks. Freedom is the most precious thing of all and if we let them take away some of our freedom they can't take away all of our freedom"

Nobody said anything about taking away ALL freedom. Just because the government restricts you a little bit, doesn't mean you aren't free. You're acting like guns are phones. Like they are a NECESSITY. I rarely feel the need to capslock my sentences but this time I will because I respect you as a debater. I want to change your mind too.

Look, if the government takes away your phone. THAT'S taking your freedom away. What do you need a gun for other than shooting birds? And are people so paranoid that they think someone is always going to break into their homes and steal their stuff? Listen, if something like that happens, you're pretty arrogant if you think you're quick enough to find your gun and shoot him/her. That person knows you have a gun, he'll come in with a bulletproof vest, you're caked.

I can provide multiple other arguments as to why Con lost this debate. Like his conduct, like the way he gave up some of my arguments, or the other numerous fallacies he's committed.

But I'll just leave it there.

I rest my case.

(btw, personally, I am undecided on the topic, I am playing devil's advocate? i guess).





Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 51 minutes ago
Adam_Godzilla
Personally, I think you're right that it may be impossible to truly ban guns. But I am debating here, and therefore I have to argue against you. Don't take it personally.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 52 minutes ago
Adam_Godzilla
Switzerlan'ds gun laws are not fair to both sides. There are active opposers to the gun laws there. And don't forget Switzerland did have a gun massacre once.
Posted by Trumpispresident 21 hours ago
Trumpispresident
when I said can't in my last sentence I meant can
Posted by Trumpispresident 22 hours ago
Trumpispresident
Yes it is and one thing pro can't realize is this for Gun control to work every American who owns a gun would have to agree to give up there freedom to own a gun. Pro also can't realize just because something works doesn't mean it's good and also if something works in another country doesn't mean it will work here the only reason I said Switzerland is because it's gun laws seems more fair to both sides rather then only being fair the far left who wants to ban guns
Posted by omar2345 1 day ago
omar2345
@Trumpispresident

Wasn't this debate about should all guns be banned?

@dustryder

right-leaning conservative values? - White supremacist do not hold conservatives values which is why they are the far right. I would say they closely resemble the far-left. This would be the horseshoe theory. They both play identity politics, Want a form of socialism, Do not believe in freedom of speech and use authoritarianism to carry out their plans. Basically the ends justify the means. For the left and right it would not be the case but it is the case for the far-left and far-right.

@whyamihere145

If you look at Britain- I rather look at Australia. What happened was law abiding citizens had their guns taken away from them which did not go well. What happened was that all other crimes like burglary increased a lot since law abiding citizens did not have weapons to defend their property and the police is not as fast as a gun or as much of an immediate deterrent compared to an immediate threat like a weapon. Besides Britain banned someone for carrying a potato peeler. Both sources for my information are below:

BRITISH MAN ARRESTED FOR WIELDING POTATO PEELER IN PUBLIC (type it in a click the Daily Caller article)

Australian Gun Laws: The Statistics (from 8 Bit Thoughts) - youtube video
Posted by dustryder 1 day ago
dustryder
Hasn't the majority of domestic terrorism in the USA been carried out by those with right-leaning conservative values? So when you say the three groups that you've mentioned are always protesting and/or rioting, How does this compare to the actual violence demonstrated by those on the right?
Posted by Trumpispresident 1 day ago
Trumpispresident
The second amendment says A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to KEEP and beat arms shall not be infringed.

So yeah it does protect people"s rights to own guns
Posted by tumeric 1 day ago
tumeric
Can someone please read the second amendment when arguing about it? Maybe even the whole thing?
There's nothing about "personal protection" or "ownership. "
If I see one more nut mischaracterize the amendment I'm gonna flip out.
Thanks.
Posted by Trumpispresident 1 day ago
Trumpispresident
Republicans could get more violent I just don't think it's as likely mostly because the three groups I mentioned are always protesting or rioting
Posted by Trumpispresident 1 day ago
Trumpispresident
Oh really 307 well that's probably because they count 3 people being injured as a mass shooting a real mass shooting should be at least 7 people killed so no we don't have a mass shooting problem and we look at this logic there are only 8 mass shootings in 2018 the rest are just crimes or gangs attacking people not mass shootings
No votes have been placed for this debate.