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

That guns should be banned in America

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2017 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,317 times Debate No: 103483
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




I will be affirming the topic that guns should be banned in America. I would like an opponent who truly believes in the second amendment. First round is to argue (and for my opponent, to respond to my arguments), second round is to respond to the opponent's arguments (no new content please).

Where do I begin? Guns: I think it is safe to define a gun as a device that can kill a living human with minimal possible difficulty. My model for this ban, would be, to phase in my policy over three years, allowing the government to "buy-back" all guns from citizens (like what was done in Australia*). The people excluded from this ban would be only the police force (except for small jobs i.e. traffic controllers, parking checkers etc.) and heavily checked, and approved hunters/farmers.

To begin my case I would like to share some statistics. In Australia (a country with current gun bans) 1 in every 111,327** people died in 2015 due to firearms. On the contrary, in America, 1 in 24,153*** people died in 2015 due to firearm misusage. That is 4.61 times as many people getting shot and killed by another person who was freely permitted to go and purchase a machine of death. There is no exaggeration in that statement whatsoever. How can numbers like those be justified? I believe that there is absolutely no argument for saying that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens save lives. They are obviously used, one way or another, to kill other innocent human beings. By negating this topic, my opponent is supporting the deaths of those THOUSANDS of innocent human beings whose families will never see them again.

A common phrase used to try and justify gun ownership, is "Guns don't kill people; people kill people", but I personally think that this is ridiculous. Even if this were case, without guns, PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO KILL PEOPLE! This is fact. No buts. No ifs. We have seen by the results that Australia has produced, that banning guns is completely moral.

I am completely aware that there are people in society who care more about their gun, than they do about their neighbours' lives but, mainly, their only argument for keeping their gun is that they enjoy hunting in their holidays. This, however, is an invalid argument as, under my policy, these people may still be permitted to hunt, as long as they comply with the regulations, get a license, and use their gun legally, which I believe most will.

In summary, I see no point for the person down the road to have a gun, if a policeman or policewoman can do the exact same job (of keeping society protected), arguably more effectively. Thank you.



My opponent mentions the gun homicide rates of Australia and the USA and makes ad-hoc argument. It"s important to note that the USA"s population is much higher than Australia"s population. Also, the widely cited US statistic about firearm deaths aren"t just homicides; they include accidents and suicide cases as well. In fact 65% of all "gun related deaths" are suicide. You can"t compare these 2 statistics.

It is also important to note that 92% of gun homicide cases happened in "gun free zones". 99% of all gun homicide cases are committed by handguns. Australia mainly bans semi automatic weapons from the public. At best, if these gun restrictions are applied to the USA, it would prevent 1% of gun homicides. Chicago has one of the toughest gun restrictions in the US. It also has a death toll greater than the war in Afghanistan.

Gun control laws don't work. A study by Quinnipiac University determined that stricter gun control laws have not correlated with a reduction in crime. A Harvard University study debunked the myth that the rate of intentional deaths is higher in the U.S. than in countries with restrictive gun control laws. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the entire world despite having lower rates of gun related homicides cases than countries that heavily regulates guns.

"Without guns, PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO KILL PEOPLE! This is fact. No buts. No ifs."

My opponent unfortunately does not understand how long human history is. The first recorded WAR was in 2500 BCE. The first gun was created in 1364 AD . Unless my opponent is willing to argue that all the wars taken place in this 3864 year timelapse resulted in zero deaths, then this point is null. You can kill people through blunt trauma, blood loss, or suffocation (guns aren"t needed).

The reason as to why the government should not ban guns is simple. The second amendment is not for hunting or even for self defense. It is for the possible event of tyranny or injustices that a government wishes to inflict upon its citizens. That is why the Jews were completely unable to resist the Nazi regime in any way. The French resistance was only able to hamper Nazi plans due to their supply of guns. Without the gun, the Americans would never have been able to declare independence from the tyrannical British crown in 1776. It has been proven that many governments have committed atrocities against a powerless group of people(Germany or Italy). One of the first decisions that Hitler made was to ban the ownership of a gun.

The gun is important for this reason and I quote from our Declaration of Independence:

"Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form"

Gun rights are necessary for the defense and preservation of a nation"s democracy and justice. My sources are in the comments.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello again,
I will begin my final statement by clarifying that my argument of "4.61 times as many people getting shot" meant 4.61 times as many people getting shot and killed PER HUNDRED PEOPLE, which factors in population. I will also point out, that suicide cases, which the opposition has mentioned, are both excluded in my numbers, and have also dropped dramatically in Australia: by approximately 37.5% IN THE FIRST 2 YEARS*! My opponent has tried to tell me that MAINLY semiautomatic weapons are banned from the public, and that 99% of homicides are committed by hand guns. I am clearly told by my source that in Australia, HANDGUNS ARE BANNED FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC**! My opponent also gave the famous example of Chicago. This however is an anomaly, and is not valid. We can also see that when it comes to murder cases EXCLUDING guns, Chicago still comes above New York. Chicago is also home to a variety of cultures and classes, so we must keep that in mind when regarding murder numbers. Another example given by my opponent, was Switzerland. In this nation, people are 65% of German ethnicity***, unlike America, which is known to be much more multicultural (at least for the time being). There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but more cultural prejudice in the form of violence is to be expected.

I see that my opponent has argued strongly on my point of: less guns = less deaths. However, in the year 2500 BCE, I am willing to bet that technology was not as developed as it is today. Therefore, in place of guns people used swords. In today's day and age, the banning of guns will NOT cause people to use swords and the like, because with modern technology (police on phones, security cameras, etc.) it would be a lot harder to get away with a crime like this. Therefore, someone with any sense at all, would not try and slay an enemy with a sword, or suffocate them with their fists. The opposition has also said that lack of guns in wartime is unacceptable, and to this, surprisingly, I agree, but the United States of America is currently not at a state of war, as far as I am aware. This argument is thus neutralised.

My opponent's last argument, is that guns are necessary to perform military coups. The literally quote from the Declaration of Independence that the people should abolish the government if it becomes destructive. I believe that what they are trying to argue, is that in the American Constitution, people are given the right to bear arms (the Second Amendment). This argument would be an argument based off tradition, or more specifically, keeping traditional gun laws. While some forms of tradition should be embraced, others should not. For example, the bible supports slavery, which is obviously wrong!

Thank you



I want to first point out that in my opponents rebuttal, he has refuted his main central claim: People don"t kill people. He attempts to refute my point about Switzerland"s lack of gun violence due to its lack of diversity of people. He attributes to increased violence due to the population which completely shuts down this point. Never mind the fact that Switzerland still has lower rates of gun violence than Scandinavia (the most homogeneous location in the world with very strict gun control).
Also, comparing Australia with the US has many implications due to the differences in geography, demographics, culture, etc. Therefore the best way to gauge Australia"s gun ban efficiency is to simply compare it to itself. The government had spent $500 million in this program. What has changed after the gun ban? A simple look into its history shows that the gun ban is a total failure.

Accidental gun deaths after the gun ban rose 300%, assault rate (involving guns) rose 800%, and armed robbery went up 200%. Australia has always been a country with low rates of gun violence regardless of the presence of guns. It is still safe with a low gun death rate but the fact is that it was actually safer in the past before the gun ban.

Also Australia categorizes guns into 6 categories. While Australia heavily regulates handguns, it doesn"t ban it from the public. The only weapons that Australia has completely restricted or banned are automatic weapons, flamethrowers, etc. "
My opponent goes on to explain why using any other weapon in terms of suicide or homicide is impractical. The main reason why suicide victims use guns are because of its relative painlessness. A cheap glock costs at least $300. Hanging/Jumping/Drowning oneself is cheaper and requires less preparation. In fact majority of suicide cases in the world aren"t from guns.

Finally, my opponent mentions the Declaration of independence quote. It is not about establishing a tradition. It is meant to establish and protect US citizens rights and justify the second amendment. As said before, the purpose of the second amendment is not for hunting or self-defense. It is for the resistance of governmental tranny should it ever arise. It is meant to protect the first amendment. If my opponent is willing to argue that the second amendment is based off of tradition then that means that the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are also based off of tradition.
If the US government can disregard one of our founding principles as a "bad" tradition, what is to say that they can"t disregard the 1st amendment the same way. The point of the Constitution is that the founding principles of America remain the principles of modern America. The first amendment allows for the existence of cults such as the Jonestown cult which resulted in the death of 909 people. Does this justify the need to completely disregard the evil tradition known as freedom of religion?

I wish you good luck and the sources are in the comments
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 14 records.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Ab-so-lu-te-ly god damned right. Guns, all of them should be banned. Period. Your idea of "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Well you take that gun away from people and people have one less, a much less of a thing to kill people with. That's how you answer that question/ statement which is such a ludicrous statement to begin with.
Also for those who use "well cars kill more people that guns do per year, or cigarettes kill more people than guns do per year." Or whatever. Those are nonsensical and stupid statements made by stupid people who clearly cannot think things through. Why? Guns are used as WEAPONS to kill people. Cars? Rarely here in this country. Cigarettes? Never. That's the difference. Case closed on that issue.
Another big issue that people don't get is that if there is a gun in the home with a woman living there, she is 3x more likely to be murdered. I'm surprised its not 20x.
Another big issue is there's absolutely no such thing as self defense with a gun. Its a myth. The 7/12/16
"Last year the Violence Policy Center found that a gun owner is 32 times more likely to use their weapon in criminal homicide rather than in self-defense. Usually the first reason a gun advocate says there is a need to own guns is the self-protection myth. Now that that myth has been debunked and it has been proven that justifiable homicides are rare, we must move past the old self-defense narrative and think with clearer heads when discussing gun ownership."
Also with gun crimes, nearly all of them are committed with LEGAL GUNS!!!!
"245 guns
Shooters brought an average of four weapons to each shooting; one carried seven guns. We don"t know how all the guns were acquired, but of the ones we know, 140 were obtained legally and 39 were obtained illegally." This article is an absolute stunner.
Posted by NDECD1441 3 years ago
Guns are heavy and kinda difficult to operate to I have qualms about the "minimal difficulty" part but otherwise, good setup.

Also, cars=roadkill
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
I agree, we should ban cars because they kill so many people.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
You mean like a car?..." I think it is safe to define a gun as a device that can kill a living human with minimal possible difficulty. "
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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