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

We should ban guns

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 646 times Debate No: 110051
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Guns are horrible weapons. They don't need to fall into the hands of criminals. But making them Illegal? Wouldn't the criminals just smuggle guns, shoot us all, and then we would have to wait for the cops to get there instead of defending ourselves with our own guns? Fight fire with fire, I say.

Now, I'm not saying we should continue on the way we have been already. People just go into stores, buy guns regardless of their age, and cause problems. Instead of banning guns, we should have stricter gun laws to prevent people like that from getting the guns in the first place, not ban them.

Banning guns would likely cause riots. Some people love their guns way too much, and how quickly do you think that love would turn to hate if you took their guns away? Personally, never owning a gun, don't know the answer to that, but I can guess it wouldn't be very good. At the very least, the people would protest to remove the ban. You have to remember, these aren't your average nonviolent protesters, these are the people you just took GUNS away from.

Overall, you should clearly be able to see that gun control is better than outright banning them.


Gun control won't help keep guns away from criminals. The only thing that gun control does is restrict or make it harder for the civilian to be armed and able to defend themselves. The majority of guns used in shootings on any scale have been proved to be obtained illegally, according to The Washington Post "They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else" This statistic blatantly shows us that making guns harder to purchase will only hurt the citizen. One thing I do agree with and what I think a lot of people agree with is the idea of stronger and more secure background checks, the Florida shooting is a perfect example, as he was able to equip a gun even though he was suffering from mental illness.
Debate Round No. 1


Your argument is completely true. You stated that enforcing gun control would make it harder for normal citizens to buy a gun. But wouldn't banning guns make it impossible? Yes, criminals would still Illegally obtain guns. But with better gun control, wouldn't it make it harder for them to get? Law abiding citizens could pass the background tests and get a gun for their protection. Criminals would not, due to their previous record, and could not get a gun in this way. This is how we could make sure good people have guns, and the bad ones don't.


All I am saying is that by making background checks more secure, it allows mentally sane and law abiding citizens to be able to purchase weapons, and we can also filter out the criminals from attempting to purchase guns for acts of crime. when you have things like the Black Market, you can never stop a criminal from obtaining a gun illegally. Criminal act is always going to be around, by making sure law abiding citizens are able to purchase weaponry, we can ensure that there will always be the ability to counter an act of crime.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm sorry, your arguments are a bit confusing to me. Are you for or against the banning of guns?

But anyway, if you make guns banned, normal citizens will not be able to purchase them. Criminals, like you stated, will obtain guns from sources such as the black market. Citizens will not have guns to defend themselves, criminals win, therefore the banning of guns is terrible.


I personally believe everybody who wants to have a gun and is law abiding and legal should be able to obtain one, all I want is for the background checks to be more secure, I don't think we should ban any guns or weapons, I just want slightly strong background checks just to make sure that the "law abiding citizens" truly are law abiding citizens. So all in all I am pro-gun and think people should have the rights to buy any gun.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
Wait this entire debate was pretty much them agreeing? Also @SpicyChicken you can bump fire using only your hands with no tool assistance or with a little ingenuity make one your self. So banning bump stocks won't be effective so why ban it when it will do little to nothing. It is not nesecary for the public to have but sports cars aren't necessary to have TVs aren't either. Arguing that it is not necessary so it should be banned isn't an effective argument. Yes, a bump fire gun can cause harm and isn't the same as a TV or car but like I said bump fire can be done by hand so banning the bump stock would be pointless.
Posted by SpicyChicken 3 years ago
When people use the argument about hunters for the pro-gun side, shouldn't the safety of others be a little more important than grandpa wanting to shoot pheasants? Also, when the pro-gun side says "background checks won't solve anything," explain to me why having a simple level of check is not required in all states. Why are extreme bumper stocks and gun enhancements allowed? In Las Vegas, the shooter used a LEGALLY OBTAINED BUMPER STOCK. Can someone explain to me how bumper stocks are necessary for the public to have? Why should people be able to obtain bumper stocks that are completely unnecessary for recreational activity.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
I'd also be very much interested in where you got your information from is saying "The majority of guns used in shootings on any scale have been proved to be obtained illegally,"?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Pro - "The Washington Post "They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else" Which Washington Post article would that be? I'd be very interested in looking that up please. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both parties argued the Con position, so arguments to Con by default. Con argued against banning guns because it would leave us vulnerable, while Pro argued against banning guns because it wouldn't "keep guns away from criminals".

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