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

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anonymous 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: 5/1/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 660 times Debate No: 113358
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)



For the first round please just accept the debate. Arguments will begin next round.


ayy, lets just have a good hearted debate, no hard feelings afterwards
im not that good of a debater anyways so ye
Debate Round No. 1


Since 1791, the United States has had the second amendment which is a law that allows US citizens to carry guns. As a result, within the past six years, there have been over 1600 shootings in the US resulting in thousands of lost lives. Because of this I am for the resolution, The United States should abolish the Second Amendment.

Observation 1: Definitions

Abolish: To formally put an end to.

Second Amendment: An amendment to the US constitution, guaranteeing the right to bear and keep arms.

Observation 2: harms

Harm 1: The Second Amendment has resulted in a dramatic increase in crime rates
Support: The Second Amendment has guaranteed the right to carry guns. However, some states decided that guns are not allowed. All of the other states that did allow guns between the years 1977-2010 had a 2% increase in murder rates and at least a 9% increase in rates of rape, aggravated assault, robbery, auto theft, burglary, and larceny. This shows that guns not only have an effect on murder rates but also other serious crimes as well. If we abolished the second amendment, all states would have a dramatic decrease in crime.
Source: National Bureau of Economic Research

Harm 2: Guns have resulted in many tragic accidents over the years
Support: Of the 32,000 gun deaths in America in 2011, 591 were due to accidental discharge, and an additional 248 were due to undetermined intent. That makes it where 2.59% of all gun deaths are by accident. Since then, the numbers haven't changed much. In 2017, 1300 children were killed by either an accident or a murder with guns. What does this tell us? Even if your intentions right, even if you just have a gun for self-defense, there is always a huge possibility that you will misfire.

Harm 3: Guns are rarely used in self-defense
Many people use self-defense as a primary reason to hold guns. But a study has shown that only 0.79% of people actually use their gun as a means of protection or a threat. Defense is the primary reason people carry guns. But there is absolutely no use if we aren't actually using the gun.
Source: Inter Consortium of Political and Social Research

Observation 3: Plan

Mandates: The US passes a law against concealed carry. Now obviously, there are going to be some people that refuse to give up their gun. For this reason, we need to make a threat. The government would pass a law saying that they have a right under reasonable suspicion to go through your house at any moment and search it. If they find a gun, you are sentenced to 6 months of federal prison or a fine of $250,000. This way, the number of people who turn in their guns will skyrocket dramatically.
Agency: The government
Funding: By Normal Means
Enforcement: Supreme Court

Observation 3: Advantages
Advantage 1: Crime rates would decrease
Support: Taking away the things that increase crime will decrease crime. Because the states that did not have guns legal had a decrease in crime, it only makes sense that banning guns would make it nationwide.
Source: National Bureau of Economic Research

Advantage 2: The rate of tragic accidents will decline. You cannot accidentally stab someone or punch someone. You can however accidentally shoot someone and it has happened.
In 2016 there were 161,374 deaths from unintentional injuries, the overall 3rd ranking cause of death that year.
From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.
Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

Advantage 3: Self defense will be left to well-trained officers, not inexperienced citizens.
Just because citizens rarely use guns, doesn't mean the police won't. They take their job, as not only the right but the privilege to protect the citizens of the US. They are the ones we can trust, and they are the only ones that we can know will come to the rescue every time.

Conclusion: The US should make concealed carry illegal. It not only has an effect on crime but many other serious things as well.


Response to Harm 1: Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., gun rights activist, stated, "The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them." According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics May 2013 report, 37.4% of state prison inmates who "used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence" obtained the gun from a family member or friend. Despite Chicago's ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012. The guns came from all 50 states, and more than half came from outside of Illinois.

Response to Harm 2: More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns. According to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.

Response to Harm 3: According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Response to your plan: There are a couple of problems with your plan. The Second Amendment was made to protect the civilians from a corrupt or unfair government, the colonists were running from the British government, fought a war, and made the Constitution of United States of America to protect themselves. The fact that you say that a government could pass a law, moreover make THREATS, is the exact reason the Second Amendment was made. America is a democratic, not a fascist, country; a law where police officers could search your house without a warrant and at any time would never pass. Furthermore, the punishments and the law itself are so extreme that it wouldn't be surprising if there a second civil war happens in return.

Response to Advantage 1: A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent." A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law" Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

Response to Advantage 2: 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres.The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, "Gun education is the best way to save young lives." The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to "teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children" Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation"not violence."

Response to Advantage 3: Look to "Response to Harm 3:" I stated that civilians would not feel safe and that it denies civilians a RIGHT to self-defense.

Debate Round No. 2


Your arguments are interesting. I will do my best to go over them and defend my case.
Harm 1: My opponent brought up a good counterclaim, yet the argument stands for a few reasons. It is true that even if we banned guns, criminals could still get their hands on them. First, let me point out that this is not including the fact that we will threaten them with 6 months of federal prison and a fine of 250,00 dollars if caught carrying a gun. But that is aside from the point. Clearly, if there were no guns at all, there would be hardly any crime at all as 68% of crimes involve guns. But that's not what I am saying. All I am saying is that there would be a decrease in crime. This can be proven in that states that have guns banned have a 2% increase in murder rates and at least a 9% increase in rates of rape, aggravated assault, robbery, auto theft, burglary, and larceny. Criminals can still get their hands on guns there and a lot of time will but that does not mean that others won't. Some will be deterred by the threat I mentioned and will hand over their gun causing crime to decrease.

Harm 2: It doesn't matter if firearms are not a leading cause of most deaths. There are still a good amount of people that are killed with firearms and even if it is not as large as other causes those lives still matter. It is the government's job and privilege to protect the citizens of the US. Even if it does not make a drastic difference, there would be no harm in doing so.

Harm 3: Self defense if the primary reason we have guns. But if we aren't using the guns at an efficient rate, then what is the use of having them? For one, there won't be as many criminals that have guns making it where there will fewer situations when you have to deal with them.

Plan: My opponent is basically saying that the threat we would make would be no more than a communist government. I'll tell you what a communist government looks like. Sending your kid to a school where they don't feel safe. Forcing your kid to go to a school where they can be shot at any point. Not being able to tell your kid that you guarantee them they will come back alive, as there have been over 1600 shootings in the US. That's a communist government.

All of my advantages are reflected from my harms. So as I have addressed the harms, I have dealt with my advantages as well.
Another thing. My opponent cited his source for everything at It is a biased website that has contradicted itself many times. According to, it has indeed contained inaccurate information. Here is a link to the website.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 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.