The Instigator
Con (against)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
FanboyMctroll
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should all 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 112610
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Con

pro starts
FanboyMctroll

Pro

Guns are prohibited in Canada unless they are hunting rifles, then they are restricted and you don't hear of shootings like Sandy Hook, Orlando night club or other shootings and nobody gets shot as nobody has guns
Debate Round No. 1

Con

It doesn't matter if we pass a law against guns. Because there is such a thing as the black market, criminals can and will get their hands on guns whenever they want. Only safe gun owners will hand over their guns, and when a criminal comes into their house, they will have no means of self defense. Banning guns will only cause crime rates tol increase and cause the black market to grow.
FanboyMctroll

Pro

I am so glad you mentioned people having guns for protection in their home. So here is some interesting reading for you.

All those wives tales you were told and all those misconceptions about guns for protection, well they are all FAKE NEWS, here are the hard facts, case closed

The United States has the most heavily armed civilian population in the First World; our homes contain enough firearms for every man, woman and child.

Why do so many Americans own guns? The main reason, according to surveys, is protection. Advocates argue that guns in the home both deter crime (criminals refrain from even trying to break in because they fear being shot by an armed citizen) and thwart it (an armed citizen can stop a crime in progress, preventing injury or theft).

The scientific evidence, however, provides little support for these arguments. Quite the opposite.

In terms of deterrence, a recent study found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher levels of firearm crime and do not have lower levels of other types of crime.

Another study, in 2003, found that counties with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher rates of household burglary, not lower. Burglars like to steal not only cash and jewelry but also guns. A homeowner with a collection of firearms may not want to advertise that fact.

As for thwarting crime, gun advocates claim that guns are commonly used in self-defense, and that without a firearm, one is essentially at the mercy of a criminal. Yet, again, that is not what the data show.

The National Crime Victimization Survey is the primary source of information on the nature and extent of criminal victimization in the United States. Some 90,000 households, comprising about 160,000 individuals, are surveyed twice a year.

Along with Sara Solnick, a professor of economics at the University of Vermont, analyzed the data for the five-year period from 2007 to 2011, looking at more than 14,000 crimes in which there was some degree of personal contact between the victim and perpetrator " incidents in which a self-protective action by the victim was theoretically possible (for example, assaults and robberies).

More than 42% of the time, the victim took some action " maced the offender, yelled at the offender, struggled, ran away, or called the police. Victims used a gun in less than 1% of the incidents (127/14,145). In other words, actual self-defense gun use, even in our gun-rich country, is rare.

It is sometimes claimed that guns are particularly beneficial to potentially weaker victims, such as women. Yet of the more than 300 sexual assaults reported in the surveys, the number of times women were able to use a gun to protect themselves was zero.

Indeed, a study of 10 previous years of crime survey data found that of more than 1,100 sexual assaults, in only one did the victim use a gun in self-defense.

The data, moreover, do not provide support for the notion that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. Slightly more than 4% of victims were injured during or after a self-defense gun use " the same percentage as were injured during or after taking other protective actions. Some other forms of protective actions were associated with higher rates of injury (for example, struggling) and some with lower (for example, running away).

Guns did seem beneficial in one category: protecting against loss of property. Looking only at crimes in which the intent was to steal , the victim lost property in only 38% of the incidents when using a gun, compared with 56% of the incidents when taking other actions. But using some other weapon " Mace, for instance " appeared equally effective as using a gun.

Almost two-thirds of the people in the U.S. population live in homes without guns, and there is no evidence that the inhabitants of these homes are at greater risk of being robbed, injured or killed by criminals compared with citizens in homes with guns. Instead, the evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home increases the likelihood not only that a household member will be shot accidentally, but also that someone in the home will die in a suicide or homicide.

In addition, hundreds of thousands of household guns are stolen each year. Gun theft is a main pathway by which guns end up in criminal hands. The public health costs of gun ownership are very high.

That is why physician organizations " who care about your health and often see firsthand the harmful effects of firearms " suggest that you very carefully weigh the actual costs and benefits before bringing a lethal weapon into your home.

Guns do not save lives, they KILL PEOPLE, get rid of guns and the senseless killings will go down. Th 2'nd Amendment needs to be removed from the constitution. Guns should be illegal like they are in most countries. Like Canada where the guns are prohibited, the crime rate is 90% lower then in the USA.

Case closed (mic drop)
Debate Round No. 2

Con

First, please cite all of your sources. I have a hard time believing that crime rates in Canada are 90% lower than the US. Even if they are the population in Canada is 36 million and the population in the US is 325 million so that might explain the percentage difference.
You stated that crime rates are lower in states that don't allow guns. First, I would like to know the source for this because there are so many different studies saying different things. I could give you 3 sources saying guns deter crime:
1. www.gunowners.org
2. American journal of Public Health
3. NCDSV.org

There are so many ways that you can implement biased statistics on whether or not guns deter crime, there is simply no way to know.
My opponent also said that guns kill people. CARS kill people but does that mean that we should get rid of all cars. Of course not. We need cars for transportation. Same thing with guns. We need guns for our self defense. If you are not armed and a criminal walks into your house, who wins? Guns are the best use of self defense and is the only way citizens will be able to stop them if they walk into their house.
If we abolish guns we might as well just abolish murderers. But it's just not that simple. If we banned guns criminals can still use the black market as a source to purchase guns. It doesn't matter what we do. All of my opponents statistics are based of of the fact that guns don't exist. But they still will. Because there are still guns in the equation, my opponent can't promise you any benefits whatsoever, it is pure speculation at best.
FanboyMctroll

Pro

When a gunman opened fire on a crowd of thousands from his Las Vegas hotel room Sunday, he was using guns and ammunition that appear to have been purchased legally. The Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, who killed 58 people and wounded almost 500, had no serious criminal record, and a local gun store said he had passed a background check before buying some of his guns. Nobody saw any red flags. Nobody thought anything was wrong with him, t"s not enough to just limit the kind of people who own guns. You have to go after the guns themselves. Guns are the problem

So here are some more gun facts for you to chew on

Americans own approximately 270 million guns, which gives America the highest rate of gun ownership with, 89 guns for every 100 people.

Approximately 20% of gun owners own 65% of the guns.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reports that about 9.3 million firearms were manufactured in the United States in 2015.

More than 36,000 Americans were victims of firearm-related deaths in 2015

As of January 1, 2017, 19 states and Washington, DC, go beyond federal law by requiring background checks for all handgun sales.

Gun-related deaths are now the third leading cause of death of American children.

Every day, 7 children are killed and 12 more are injured with a gun.

44% of Americans say they personally know someone who has been shot with a gun, either accidentally or intentionally.
According to DoSomething.org, even though young people are disproportionately affected by gun violence, 85% of young people say they feel silenced in the debate over finding solutions.

27 people were killed by guns in America on Christmas Day in 2015, which is equal to the total number of people killed in gun homicides in an entire year in Austria, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Estonia, Bermuda, Hong Kong, and Iceland combined.

The last stat should be enough for everyone in the world to realize only backwater rednecks with grade 8 education would think that guns are a good thing.

case closed (mic drop)

Only in America
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ZzRanger 2 years ago
ZzRanger
RFD

Not too bad of a debate. For both sides, PLEASE USE SOURCES!! Pro, although I don't doubt that your sources are true, without any citations, there isn't a way to check your information's credibility. Also, you had very strong arguments explaining the problems with gun ownership, clearly indicating why guns are bad. Con had a good rebuttal by saying guns won't reduce the amount of deaths and crime that come from guns. Since pro didn't address the con's argument that abolishing guns won't deter crime, other than by citing, once again, that guns are bad, I can only see con winning. For both of you, I would strongly recommend using and citing sources to further strengthen your arguments, and also try to organize your arguments. I'm only posting it in the comments since I can't vote yet.
Posted by WhiteHawk 2 years ago
WhiteHawk
FanboyMctroll, you are only scratching the surface of your so called "arguments". If you and I could have a conversation with you, I'd be happy to enlighten you. As I said, you are not being specific enough, you need to provide the times, and locations of all your evidence. And source it, it could be lies and you'd never know without sources.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
DeletedUser
Is the gun the problem or the human heart?
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
DeletedUser
Sources?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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