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

There should not be more restrictions on guns or gun ownership

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
FanboyMctroll has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,464 times Debate No: 118258
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)




Please use the first box to accept, Thank you.
Happy debating!


Guns are just retarded killing tools, They are nothing else. Sure you can say anything can be used as a killing tool, Like a car, Or a knife on and on, BUT a knife is made for cutting food, A car is for driving and commuting, A baseball bat is for baseball, What is a gun for. . . . . KILLING!

Guns should all be banned and the 2nd amendment should be abolished. I will provide facts to the real statistics of guns.

So yes there should be more restrictions, How about an ABSOLUTE BAN, We don't live in the wild west anymore hillbilly!
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. So lets get down to the hard facts, That will make an average citizen cringe as they have been fed NRA propaganda by the same organization that made more money than Hollywood entertainment in the last year. 28 billion dollars, Yes, The government was paid 6 billion in taxes from the NRA. So lets get down to the real stats.

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,

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).
Debate Round No. 2


The first round was for acceptance, And for some reason my first argument didn't post outside of my computer, You will have two more opportunities than I will. Please no name calling. I am not a hillbilly.

You assert that guns are killing tools. Americans purchase guns for defense, Sport, And to protect their property. You're right, Knives are intended for and mostly used to cut food, So they are not killing tools, But that means guns are intended for defense and sport and are mostly used for this [https://wapo. St. . . ], So they are not killing machines.

Guns are used for defense frequently. The CDC, National Academies" Institute of Medicine, And National Research Council concluded that defensive gun uses by victims range from 500, 000 to 3 million each year [https://www. Forbes. Com. . . ]. The CDC also estimates about 498, 000 burglaries and break-ins were stopped by defensive gun use [https://thenewstalkers. Com. . . ]. Guns are sure to have stopped rape and assault as well. A study by the National Academies' came up with "an estimate of 162, 000 cases per year where someone almost certainly would have been killed if they had not used a gun for protection" [https://www. Forbes. Com. . . ] compared to roughly 10, 000 gun homicides per year (the FBI Bureau of Statistics) [https://ucr. Fbi. Gov. . . ].

Gun Ban? When D. C. Instituted the ban, Their rate of about 27 Homicides and Non-Negligible Manslaughters per 100, 000 people became 80+, And when the ban was struck down, Their homicide rate reached lows [http://www. Factandmyth. Com. . . ]. Great Britain banned guns, And their homicide rate went from 1. 16 to 1. 8. In Ireland, . 7 became 1. 13 over 45 years [https://mises. Org. . . ].

As for your study that speaks of states, The Washington-Post claims just the opposite [https://www. Washingtonpost. Com. . . ]. If that's not good enough, The FBI shows a downward trend in the homicide rate as state gun ownership increases [https://medium. Com. . . ].

Let's talk about burglaries. Since the U. S. Has so many guns, There are significantly less burglaries while people are at home (13%) than in countries like Canada (44%) and Great Britain (95%) [http://davekopel. Org. . . ].

The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence that suggests restrictive gun measures will have no positive effect.


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. The 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. 3


Yes, Guns may not stop many sexual assaults. Yes, Guns may not stop people from getting injured at large. Yes, Households of guns may be more likely to have gun violence, But when it comes down to it, Just because guns don't stop every single possible bad thing out there, Does not mean they are bad.

In response to your claim that guns make a household more at risk, Nobody is forcing you to get a gun. If people want to get one, Who are you to say they can't? Fast food puts people at increased risk for heart disease, Why not ban fast food?

The fact of the matter is that you have to come up with reasons why guns are a net bad, And you haven't. Just because they don't solve every problem, Just because they are deadly, Just because you CHOOSING to buy one puts you at risk, Does not mean that they are an inherent bad.

As far as suicide goes, Do you really think that people won't just commit suicide in a different way? Regular people do not see guns and immediately want to die, They already want to die; they just have a slightly more simple to die, And this is coming from someone who had a neighbor who committed suicide with a gun. The feeling of walking out to the bus stop and seeing ambulances, A body bag, And one less comrade is ineffably tragic, But the person was already suicidal. That is how the world works.

How about gun theft? Criminals break the law to get guns. If you ban guns, They will make them. Criminals break the law anyways, But the normal citizen who needs protection doesn't; therefore, Bad people will have guns, And good people will not. Guns can literally be 3-D printed by criminals. Are we going to ban the 3-D plastic next? There is nothing the government can do to remove guns off the face of the earth.

Canada you say?

Fun fact! After Canada banned guns in 1969 (when there was already a homicide rate high point), The homicide rate nearly DOUBLED from 1. 66 to 3 per 100, 000 [https://mises. Org/wire/gun-control-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada]. Also, Yes, Canada had less of a homicide rate, But this is NOT NEW. Canada's homicide rate has fluctuated between 90% less (which is now) to 500% less (which was before Canada's gun ban) [https://ourworldindata. Org/homicides].

Gun bans have historically had NEGATIVE effects. SIGNIFICANTLY more people died in Washington D. C. , Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, And many other places because of gun restrictions.

And don't even think about bringing up Australia. That's a faulty analogy because there is not enough time to judge long term effects, They had. 4% of the guns we have now, They are underdeveloped and don't have the raw materials to make guns compared to the U. S. So people can't make guns if they want to, And because gun smuggling would not remotely be a dire issue considering Australia is literally an entire continent surrounded by water

Don't even think about bringing up statistics about gun violence going down because that doesn't mean a single thing as long as people are dying at increased rates.

Don't argue like you did in the comment section that guns in the hands of police are good enough. Tell that to the citizens in rural areas that can't get police in time. Tell that to someone who is getting murdered. Tell that to someone who does not have a phone with them. It is not practical to call the police and wait for them to get there rather than get your gun when you are on the brink of being killed.

The fact of the matter is that, I will say it again, The CDC, A government agency, Not an unreliable survey or poll, Estimated "162, 000 cases per year where someone almost certainly would have been killed of they had not used a gun for protection".
Gun do kill people, Yes, But they also save much more people than they kill, And when it comes down to it, That is what matters most! As I already said, There are about 10, 000 homicides per year. That means that we would have 16 TIMES the homicides we have now. Repealing the 2nd amendment does not mean we stop crime, It means we lose our rights and at the same time much more people die!

You also argued in the comment section that school shootings and accidents happen. Yes this stuff happens, And it is devastating; however, The fact of the matter is LESS PEOPLE DIE with guns than without them. Individual tragedy does not justify a large scale solution.

This is the problem with new gun restrictions of any kind. Yes there should be background checks. No there should not be automatic or assault weapons (no the AR in AR-15 is not assault rifle, It stands for ArmaLite). Yes there should not be bump stocks (this is a not a gun restriction; it is a gun accessory restriction, And the NRA even supports this). There is a common misconception that there is a concrete line between the 'good guns' and the 'ban guns'. This is false. People say "ban assault rifles" even though they are less deadly than many shotguns because shotguns can shoot faster, And every shot is actually 6 to 200 pieces of shrapnel. Many handguns are much more deadly too because you can shoot them faster, Hit more people, Carry more handguns so you don't even have to reload, And their bullets break apart on impact hurting more internal organs. As someone who is a former boy scout who has shot all these types of gun, I know from personal experience that this is the case.

Whether you like it or not, Banning guns or restricting them more than they already are won't do anything. People who are so messed up that they murder people will not change their behaviors just because there are no guns. They found this out the hard way in Great Britain where now they are literally implementing knife control.

My question to you is simple.
Will you stop acting out on how you feel about guns, And actually look at the statistics? That's all it takes to realize gun control is not the answer.

Sorry for the read!
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
How many people must die before we get rid of guns?

Three shootings in two days

A day earlier, Two other shootings made national news.

A co-worker injured three people when he opened fire Wednesday at an office complex in Middleton, Wisconsin. Later that day, A gunman wounded four people in Masontown, Pennsylvania.

Police killed the shooters in both cases Wednesday.

In Harford County, Where Thursday's shooting happened, A man killed three people and wounded two others in October at a remodeling business where he worked. The gunman later drove to Wilmington, Delaware, Where he shot and wounded a sixth victim.

A woman who shot three people dead at a Rite Aid distribution center in Maryland was a disgruntled employee who had been working there for less than two weeks, Authorities said.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
that's what I'm going to have to do, Copy and paste somewhere first, Because now I have to re-write my debate and find all the source links
Posted by Jsgraz 3 years ago
I'm sorry that sucks, And that's exactly what happened to me on my first one. Now I copy and paste it somewhere else every time I write one
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
damn it! I just wrote this huge reply on the debate and it didn't post and is gone, What the hell is wrong with DDO

I didn't even save it, Now I have to re-write all my material!
Posted by Jsgraz 3 years ago
It would work only if I butchered the citations and cut it in half. That sucks
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
@ Jsgraz, Check the amount of characters remaining in your debate. I found that for some unknown reason, If you put too much info in your debate the round will not post. That is why my round 2 debate is cut in half and I was going to write my other half in round 3.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
In America we already tried letting people have guns under the 2'nd amendment, Well it aint working, We have more mass shootings, School shootings and rampage shooting not including ghetto gang violence like in Chicago where 1200 people were murdered last year with a gun. People aren't responsible enough to own a firearm, And the ones that are, Have their guns stolen during break ins. And so we shouldn't have guns.

MacGyver doesn't need a gun, And he fights bad guys with just a rubber band and a pack of chewing gum LOL
Posted by Jsgraz 3 years ago
The issue is that I will have it there, Click submit, Then it will just not show up. What happened yesterday is that it did show up on my computer, But apparently it didn't actually post it. Like right now on my computer it says "We are waiting for FanboyMctroll to post their argument for round #3", But if I refresh it, It wants me to post my argument. I'm doing three debates now, And it is only doing this for this one. I'm out of ideas. I've tried everything.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
@ Jsgraz - I had the same problem trying to post my rebuttal, DDO sucks at times and crashes and you can't continue your debate

@ Masterful, If there is a home invasion, You don't have time to get your gun, By the time you realize what is happening you are staring at a barrel of a shotgun, Then what are you going to do?

As for the acid being thrown in your face, You won't have a chance to un holster your gun before your face is turning into hamburger
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
It's normally socialists who want to take peoples guns because funnily enough they want the redistribution of wealth (which is just stealing profits) they can't implement such ideologies if the society they are in is able to defend itself. That's why this anti-gun narrative is being pushed is an attack on the people by an increasingly dangerous socialist demographic, Just look at the university professors, They're full blown Marxists (communists)

So, Socialist push for larger government with more control, While capitalists push for a smaller government with less control. How about we stop implementing socialist ideas such as mandatory free healthcare (Obama care) and allow the person to have full rights to the things they create with their mind and body. This includes ownership of property including guns.
That is what it means to be liberal and free.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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