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

Should all guns be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 112391
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)



I believe that all guns should be banned. For the first round please just accept the debate. Arguments will begin next round.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Since 1791, the United States has had the second amendment which is a law that allows US citizens to carry guns. As a result, within the past six years, there have been over 1600 shootings in the US resulting in thousands of lost lives. Because of this, I am for the resolution that the United States should abolish the Second Amendment.

Observation 1: Definitions

Abolish: To formally put an end to.

Second Amendment: An amendment to the US constitution, guaranteeing the right to bear and keep arms.

Observation 2: harms

Harm 1: The Second Amendment has resulted in a dramatic increase in crime rates
Support: The Second Amendment has guaranteed the right to carry guns. However, some states decided that guns are not allowed. All of the other states that did allow guns between the years 1977-2010 had a 2% increase in murder rates and at least a 9% increase in rates of rape, aggravated assault, robbery, auto theft, burglary, and larceny. This shows that guns not only have an effect on murder rates but also other serious crimes as well. If we abolished the second amendment, all states would have a dramatic decrease in these types of crime.
Source: National Bureau of economic research
Harm 2: Guns have resulted in many tragic accidents over the years
Support: Of the 32,000 gun deaths in America in 2011, 591 were due to accidental discharge, and an additional 248 were due to undetermined intent. That makes it where 2.59% of all gun deaths are by accident. Since then, the numbers haven't changed much. In 2017, 1300 children were killed by either an accident or a murder with guns. What does this tell us? Even if your intentions right, even if you just have a gun for self-defense, there is always a huge possibility that you will misfire.

Harm 3: Guns are rarely used in self-defense
Many people use self-defense as a primary reason to hold guns. But a study has shown that only 0.79% of people actually use their gun as a means of protection or a threat. Defense is the primary reason people carry guns. But there is absolutely no use if we aren't actually using the gun.
Source: Inter Consortium of political and social research

Observation 3: Plan

Mandates: The US passes a law against concealed carry. Now obviously, there are going to be some people that refuse to give up their gun. For this reason, we need to make a threat. The government would pass a law saying that they have a right to go through your house at any moment and search it. If they find a gun, you are sentenced to 6 months in federal prison or a fine of $250,000. This way, the number of people who turn in their guns will skyrocket dramatically
Agency: The government
Funding: By Normal Means
Enforcement: Supreme Court

Observation 3: Advantages
Advantage 1: Crime rates would decrease
Support: Taking away the things that increase crime will decrease crime
Source: national bureau of economic research

Advantage 2: The rate of tragic accidents will decline. Because you cannot accidentally stab someone, or accidentally punch someone, without guns, there are very few ways that you can accidentally kill someone. Abolishing guns takes away the rate of tragic accidents.

Advantage 3: Self defense will be left to well-trained officers, not inexperienced citizens.
Just because citizens rarely use guns, doesn't mean the police won't. They take their job, as not only the right but the privilege to protect the citizens of the US. They are the ones we can trust, and they are the only ones that we can know will come to the rescue every time.
Source: Inter consortium of political and social research
In conclusion, the US should abolish the second amendment.


Firstly, safety isn't the only issue.
The violation of long held rights being a big one.

In your plan you wrote this, "
The government would pass a law saying that they have a right to go through your house at any moment and search it."

This means not one, but two constitutional rights would be violated. The second and fourth amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This is the fourth amendment.

Your plan also relies on trusting law enforcement and the government to not become corrupt. The reason the second amendment exists is because america had just been born out of tyranny. It was a measure against the government, to insure freedom.

Should any government have so much control over the people, that it is the only one that can ever fight back?

Killing people is already illegal.

In almost 80% of gun crimes, the gun was obtained illegally.

All banning guns would do is grow the black market, and only the safe gun owners would ever hand over their guns.

Six months in prison isn't a long time, and is unlikely to be a deterrent to someone willing to risk death or life in prison to kill someone.

Only 36,252 people die from guns a year. More people die from secondhand smoke, at 53,800 deaths per year.

America borders mexico, which means smuggling efforts would be easy as heroin. We would always have problems with guns, but the people who are responsible gun owners are left without.
Debate Round No. 2


First, the government would not do unreasonable searches. They would only search your house if they had reasonable suspicion. That would not be a violation of the fourth amendment.
In order to deter criminals to carry guns, we need a good threat. If anyone was caught carrying a gun we would sentence them to 10 years of federal prison and a fine of $250,000. That would have a better deterrent effect.
In terms of crime rates, I am not arguing that crime rates will disappear. Obviously, if there were no guns, crime rates would almost be nonexistent. But that's not what I am saying. If you believe that crime rates would be lower with guns in the equation, then why do the states that make guns illegal have significantly lower crime rates?
Can't criminals obtain guns illegally there as well? you said only 36,252 people die from guns a year. Even if some criminals get their hands on guns, others won't because they will be deterred by the 10-year federal prison sentence if caught carrying a gun. You said in 80% of gun crimes, the gun was obtained illegally. This may be true but that means that if we abolished guns, that number would lower to around 29,000 which is a significant difference. Those 7,000 lives matter. It is not only right but the responsibility for the government to do all they can to protect the citizens of the US. It is our job to make sure the amount of deaths per year is as low as possible.
You also didn't mention a significant amount of my other arguments in the first round. These include the problem of self-defense and the rate of tragic accidents.


First off, the gun death number I used included suicides. The number of murders done used by lawfully owned guns is even less than that 7,000.

it isn't rational to try to take away 300 million guns from the us population for such a small number of dealths. People would be extremely resistant, 73% of gun owners cannot see themselves not owning a gun.

People who would be willing to turn in fire arms are the least likely to actually be an issue. getting rid of guns would likely just build resentment in the public.


Guns are not safe by nature, and should be handled with respect. But they are necessary.

The average time police take to respond to a call is 10 minutes. depending on where you live, this can be longer or shorter. In some areas it can take up to an hour.

Ten minutes is a long time, and can easily mean someone's life. Without legal gun ownership it is very likely to meet death while waiting.

I would love to deepen my argument and look for what I missed in round two, however my fever just got high so my head feels cloudy. Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by asta 2 years ago
Saying we don't need guns because of the police is like saying you don't need a first aid kit because of doctors.

Saying that guns should be illegal because of a few crazy murderers is like saying that cars should be illegal because of accident deaths.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
If you believe crime rates would decrease, then it is an awfully big coincidence that the states who have guns banned are actually the ones that have a decrease of crime
Posted by GodsWarrior76 2 years ago
If all guns were banned completely, there would increased rates of crime, trust me. Look at states in the U.S. like Illinois, and California, just a major mess with crime rates through the roof. And they have one of the most strict gun laws in the U.S. Gun laws will not decrease if you took all guns away, guns are used for protection against a tyranny. It has happened in many countries in the past. Gun laws would significantly increase if you took all guns away.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
If no one had a single gun there would be no crime. But I am not arguing that. I am arguing that crime rates would decrease because the states that banned guns did indeed have a way lower crime rate then the rest of then nation. In those states there were people that owned guns illegally but that is the case with any law. It would be like saying that would we shouldn't have a law against stealing because there will always be people who still steal.
Posted by swamissurfer 2 years ago
The problem with banning guns is how do you enforce it? You can't. The only one's you can find are going to be the ones that got them legally. If you take away guns from people who got them legally then the only guys that have guns are the guys who got them illegally. The guys who got them illegally are FAR GREATER to be criminals and use the guns against you. If they are FAR GREATER to be criminals and they no all of the good guys have no guns they know the risks of getting shot by honest people are ZERO. If criminals know they aren't going to get shot there is nothing to stop them from increasing robbing and killing. After this experiment moves forward we likely see crimes SKYROCKET because criminals don't avoid the laws.
Posted by Eric567 2 years ago
So... because of people who get guns across the border, and have shown signs of mental illness, I can't hunt with my father, or go to the range. Especially for northerners, who legitimately hunt for food, this seems unfair to those who still believe in our government. Also, a brief point, a gun is a tool, and by the logic of "people misuse it in horrible ways, let's ban it", you could start a debate to ban the internet. People buy and sell illegal products on it, and often kidnappers, murderers, and organized crime use it as bait. What about security forces? They aren't police, what do they do? And how do you plan to confiscate weapons? According to national studies, there's a gun for every American adult (Of course, only about a quarter of us own them), and also, what about people who have owned guns for 20+ years without a single speck of dirt on them? One more thing, I looked through gun laws in the United States, there is not a single state that has banned guns. London essentially banned all guns, save for hunting rifles (Bolt action, wooden) and even then you have to register for months, and at first, gun violence lowered. But now it's rising, you know why? Because even though the number of guns is low, people can buy them on the internet now! So that's not an issue.
Posted by Truth-Over-Emotion 2 years ago
Did you know that London has a higher murder rate than New York? But I thought banning guns would solve murders and acts of violence.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
There are however states where owning guns are illegal. Those states have a decrease in crime rates. Of course, there are criminals who still carry guns. But that number in those states is way smaller than those which guns are legal. Of course, if there were absolutely no guns, crime rates would almost be non-existent. But I am not arguing that. All I am saying is that if we made guns illegal, made it where we could fine people $250,000 if caught owning a gun, we would have way less crime rates. If our "Self Defense" is not being used, what is the point of owning a gun?
Posted by Eric567 2 years ago
I can understand your point of view, but unfortunately, abolishing the second amendment will not improve crime rates by any significant margin, if at all. First of all, an overwhelming majority of Criminals, Shooters, and Gangsters get their guns from either across the border or on the deep web. This is because our restrictions that are currently in place, require any would-be legal firearm owner to undergo an extensive background check, which would filter out nearly all men of evil intent. Astoundingly, people seem to think that banning guns in the United States, or other countries will improve the situation, but this is not the case. Doing so, would expand the illegal gun trade, swipe firearms out of law-abiding citizens, and gently place them into the hands of criminals. This works, because believe it or not, weapons manufacturers, while they make most of their money by selling to mercenaries, Militaries, or Police Forces, they have been, and will always make a considerable amount of money selling to foreign and civil investors. ThAnk you for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BeckyDawg 2 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think pro's arguments were convincing all-around. I appreciated the use of statistics, but pro failed to use convincing statistics for the most critical arguments (e.g. "Advantage 1: Crime rates would decrease Support: Taking away the things that increase crime will decrease crime"). This is something I would have been willing to accept, given numbers were provided to back it up. I can actually think of sources that would refute this claim, but it's beside the point. I would have been interested to see what would have spired from more rounds.

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