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

banning guns

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
libriallroaster has forfeited round #3.
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: 5/29/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 472 times Debate No: 114630
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Banning guns in the USA is a horrible Idea, because your taking the right of law abiding citizens to defend them selves against people trying to do them harm. Also before looking at countries like England and say their less violent then us, their murder rates has tripled, for example London's murder rate is higher than New York, in fact its so bad their trying to ban knives. Do you see the cycle first its guns, than knives, then most likely hammers. Not to mention most gun violent crimes are used with illegal guns. If you don't believe gun trafficking is the problem look at mexico, they have three times the gun violence but stricter gun laws.


Having lived extensively in both London and Washington, I simply do not agree with your concept and beliefs on guns. I am not a liberal; but having lived outside of America, I have formed a very different opinion on guns.

Good Luck and I look forward to your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1


I lived in england to for 9 years but if you listen to Bbc news they did a whole story on knife violence in the uk, and how they are trying to ban it. Their just limiting the ability for their citizens to defend them selves. Gun violence is lower than you think to because around 30000 thousand lives are killed each year to gun violence. How ever 1 to 2 million lives are saved each year in the us acording to washinton post in fact some lives are saved with out firing a bullet.


Thank you for your opening argument. I look forward to continuing this debate.

I am glad you quoted those statistics. Whilst they may be true you miss the point of this debate. Whilst more lives are saved by guns then taken by them, what about the case of school shootings. In Stoneman Douglas, only 17 people were killed. Are you actually going to argue that the sum total of a murder by guns is based in the numbers. The value of human life extends way beyond that.
Your statistics miss the point. They analyze two very different things. The impact of a school shooting is immeasurable. More so than the death count, but physiological effects which will have a severe impact on the student"s ability to develop. Your use of those statistics completely misrepresents the debate. You cannot value school shootings on the death tolol; it is very rarely high. I argue today that school shootings have a far greater impact than the number of students who die, and it extends to the family, staff and friends of the victims, and is, in my opinion, quite narrow sighted to say that just because less people are killed, guns have a positive impact.

Secondly, i would like to address your point about knife violence, without strqaying to far from the debate. In the UK, knife violence is only common because of gangs. A report concluded that nearly 77% of stabbings in London are motivated due to gang violence. Furthermore, outside of gangs, there is very little knife crime. As a result, the best way to avoid being stabbed: don't join a gang.
The relevance of this is that you argued that London was more violent than New York. This is only true when you look at a very very small proportion of the statistics - two months of 2018 there were more violent crimes in London and yet still less murders. When the vast majority is viewed, New York is significantly more dangerous - largely due to the high levels of gun violence. (
In London, there were 116 murders in 2017 and nearly 300 in New York.
This is attributed to the gun violence that is present in New York, showing yet another reason to ban guns.

Finally, I would like to address your point about self protection. In the UK, there is no need to carry guns or knives because there is little threat. Your argument essentially disproves itself. If you take away all the guns; you would not need to carry protection. However, by carrying guns you increase the potential and the ability for gun violence to occur.
No guns = no gun violence, whereas More guns = more potential for gun violence. The UK banned guns after Dunblane and Hungerford - both mass shootings - yet Americans are convinced that the only way to protect themselves from guns is by buying more guns. IF you can't recognise that is a flawed concept, then this debate will go nowhere.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago
Any society relies on taught and acquired morality.

Guns or not, makes no difference

There will always be those that are prepared to kill others.

More guns, more potential. Less guns less potential.

Gang violence is popular at the moment in the U.K.

As long as it's only the game players that get killed.

Freedom of choice when all is said and done.
Posted by Joshfour 3 years ago
We'd basically have a civil war in less then a day if we banned guns.
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.