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

the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

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  
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: 11/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 659 times Debate No: 82384
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense.

more guns means more overall homicide;

would you be open to this if it could reduce murders by say, eighty percent?

i reluctantly would probably support bans and confiscation on a nationwide scale. this view doesn't make me popular and i dont like taking people's guns away. and i am open to evidence to contradict my main premises and cause me more caution in my view. i am just openly considering the idea, which is what i think should be expected from everyone.

as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense.

i would expect if we banned and confiscated weopons that gun murders would go down as that's what the evidence indicates. i'm sure with the open borders etc that there would still be some murder, and defenseless people, just not as much. the main reason people need a gun for self defense is because there's so many guns to begin with. ive never seen someone acknowledge "yes we get more murder with gun rights, but that's the way it is for self defense". but it seems that's what the situation is. getting rid of guns should be taken seriously, i just dont know the exact numbers for what would happen.

i know australia banned and confiscated a bunch of more serious guns and they knocked their rate in half. and they went from one mass shooting per year to none, that's not a statistical anomaly. that's not bad, if it was more serious confiscating, i could see it knocking say eighty percent of the murders. is that worth it while leaving people defenseless? i suppose it's not unreasonable to think otherwise than what im pushing, but yhou should at least acknowledge the deaths you're allowing for and openly consider both sides.



Greetings community! This will be my first debate and I am excited to be a part of this community and argue against the statement, "The USA should ban most guns and confiscate them." I would like to thank my opponent, dairygirl4u2c, which I will now refer to as con throughout this debate for giving me the opportunity to debate this issue. Let's have a good debate and I hope this debate will provide a great learning experience and a new perspective for the both of us and everybody who is involved.

Since con did not specify the conditions for each round for this debate, I will attack con's premise in the fact that it does not support her conclusion in banning most guns and confiscating them in the USA as well as addressing the claims that con has made. I will also provide some premises of my own in support of not banning guns and I look forward to con's rebuttal to my premises with relevant evidence. I will provide definitions from the Oxford Dictionaries throughout the debate when it is relevant unless con rather have my definitions from another source. Con also bought up the confiscation of guns in Austalia, which I will also address, but I will not focus my argument on since I feel the banning of guns in Australia is not relevant to the banning of guns in the USA. When I say the banning of guns in the USA, please make the distinction that I am in no way saying that there should not be any regulations on guns, but instead, the removal of guns in the USA. I will not go over my beliefs in what regulations are necessary, but instead, I might use the regulations imposed and its effect as evidence.

"The USA should ban most guns and confiscate them," which I shall now refer to as the conclusion in this debate was unclear to me so I will address what I thought before accepting this debate and con's claim of "most guns". Currently, most guns are already banned. In 1994, the United States passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 [1]. This federal law prohibits the manufacture and use of a list of semi-automatic weapons by civilian, ranging from any semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles. Although this federal law did not ban all guns that are currently available today, my assumption of con's statement of "most guns" will mean the current guns in existence today.

Con made the claim, "a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun." I do agree that a gun can equate to a danger to yourself and those around you, which I will discuss as a risk. A risk is "a situation involving exposure to danger." Although guns provide a risk of dangers such as homicides and suicides, it is not sufficient to the conclusion, nor is it necessary for homicides and suicides. When I make the claim of a risk, I shall equate this risk to the health risk of having the object in question in a close proximity since a health risk at worst is death.

My argument will be if the object in question is a risk, then it should not have the merits of being banned, which I will remind that it is by no means not the same as having no regulations on it. According to con's references, the articles state that there is a risk in the involvement of a gun in a home. To me, this is indeed common sense and I agree with this statement since the home with no guns will have a lower risk of gun homicide or suicide since no guns exist in that home, but the risk is not eliminated completely. There is a risk in bacon consumption, which can lead to a high risk of heart disease and stroke [2]. This is indeed the leading cause of death in the United States [3]. If I were to not eat bacon, then I can lower my risk of heart disease and stroke, but that still does not deter me the possibility of still having heart disease and a stroke since it can be a number of factors that can contribute to it; diet, exercise, smoking, etc. I digress, but this can be similar to having guns in home leading to a higher risk of death. There are a number of issues that can lead to death with guns such as mental health, social inequality, and gun safety knowledge. What I wanted to point out is that risk should not be the only factor in banning something and is not sufficient for the banning.

I want to argue against the perspective of having more guns would lead to a higher risk of homicide rate. This will go hand in hand with con's claim, "more guns means more overall homicide." For this next point, my attention will be focused in just the states in the United States since it can be seen that in other countries with less guns than the United States, there is still a very high homicide rate from guns; Honduras, El Salvador, etc. The contributing factors can include many things such as cultural beliefs, governmental control, and economic background. Every country has its own sets of problems to deal with differently and the same solution might not work. This will touch a little bit on the banning in Australia is not at all relevant to the potential banning in the United States. This is a quote from Prime Minister Howard of Australia,

"Our challenges were different from America's. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn't as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America's over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms." [4]

Now, back to my point on having more guns would lead to a higher risk of homicide rate in the United States. I will focus on the ownership of guns and the homicide rate rather than the regulations on guns to homicide rate since each state has different laws and some states are much stricter than others. Consider this chart [5]:

State / Gun Ownership / Gun Murders (per 100,000)
WY / 59.7% / 0.9
AK / 57.8% / 2.7
MT / 57.7% / 1.2
SD / 56.6% / 1.0
WV / 55.4% / 1.5

D.C. / 3.6% / 16.5
LA / 44.1% / 7.7
MO / 41.7% / 5.4
SC / 21.3% / 5.1
MI / 42.3% / 4.5

This chart was taken from Wikipedia, based on the U.S. Census Bureau. You are free to reject any sources from Wikipedia. The first five state has the highest gun ownership while the next five states has the highest homicide rate from guns. From the chart, it is evident that there is no correlation between a high gun ownership to homicide rate. Sadly, there are still risks from having guns, but not a higher risk of having more guns.

If possible, I would like con to address the issue of overturning the United States' Second Amendment in the Constitution and to find a common ground on making it acceptable to ban guns, yet still preserve the civil freedoms of the right to bear arms. I find this relevant as a premise to the conclusion unless con is able to counter on why it isn't. I have included a further reading list for those that would like to learn and be more aware about this controversial issue.


Further reading:

Debate Round No. 1


con says most guns are already illegal. i dont know if this is true or not, but my point was that most currently legal guns should be banned and confiscated.

con compares guns to eating bacon. which is riduculous. bacon is good if eaten in moderation, is eaten voluntarily and is not designed to kill. murders are not voluntary and guns are designed to kill.

con says the wiki source shows no correlation between guns and homicdies. the problem is the source, wikipedia, and the small sample taken. a larger sample and bigger source as i cited, is superior to the wiki info.

con mentions the second amendment. we'd have to get rid of it, or go back to an understanding that it only protects state militias.


Before I continue with this round, I would like to make a quick correction in the previous round. I made the mistake of referring to dairygirl4u2c as "con" when I should be using "pro" since relative to me, she is against me, but it should be the stance on the conclusion. Henceforth, I will now be referring to dairygirl4u2c as "pro".

In my previous argument, I made the claim, "Currently, most guns are already banned." It seems pro has no opinion on my claim with her claim, "i dont know if this is true or not..." Although it is not related to the conclusion, pro's comment still bothers me in the lack of awareness in this issue regardless of the evidence and reference I provided as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The federal law is indeed extensive to go through so I will reference a summary for easy reading and comprehension [9].

Pro makes the claim, "con compares guns to eating bacon. which is riduculous." I agree with this statement that it is in fact ridiculous, but I disagree that I made that comparison. Pro, I read the research that you provided and it only studied the risk of having a gun in a home, leading to a higher rate of homicide and suicide. I did not disagree with the study, but what I did disagree with was using the study as a premise for the conclusion. Once again, the conclusion is, "the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them." I believe that pro has failed in understanding my premise of comparing the risk of an object. I did not compare guns to bacon. I compared the risks of eating bacon and the risks of having guns in home, which in the worst case scenario is death. I argued, "risk should not be the only factor in banning something and is not sufficient for the banning." My argument still holds since pro has failed to demonstrate with relevant evidence that my specific claim is wrong in the fact that risk should be the only factor to consider when banning something.

Pro makes the claim, "guns are designed to kill." I can argue against this, but I feel it is not necessary at the moment since pro has not clear the hurdle of justifying that risk (from her study) should be the only factor in banning guns, which is pro's main premise in supporting the conclusion. I will not argue against this statement since pro has not provided any evidence to support this claim, but I will make a proposal and not go further into it with evidence and examples. I would argue that guns are not designed to kill, but can be use to kill. These are two different statements that means two different things. The intention of the gun itself is different from the intention of the person using the gun.

1 - A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other objects before it is built or made.

2 - Purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

1 - The action of using something or the state of being used for some purpose.

1.1 - The ability or power to exercise or manipulate something, especially one's mind or body.

1.2 - A purpose for or way in which something can be used.

Pro has rejected my wikipedia source, as expected. I was hoping that a chart would be easy to understand, but now I will have the pleasure of going into the meat of showing that there is no correlation between more guns and higher homicides with evidence to back my statements. Since pro has references to a study, so too, will I. Continuing on my focus on just solely the United States in the correlation of gun ownership and homicide rates from the constraints I set myself in my previous argument (although this study does include other international countries), I will argue that more guns does not mean more homicides in the United States. I shall be using the study from Harvard, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser.

"International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative." [10]

In the study, it can be seen that there is no correlation with more guns means more homicides. There is a negative correlation where there is lower crime rates in higher guns ownership and more crime with less guns ownership.

"[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country-sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups..." [10]

"In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's review of then-extant studies." [10]

"On the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s." [10]

"There are now 40 states where qualified citizens can obtain such a handgun permit. As a result, the number of U.S. citizens allowed to carry concealed handguns in shopping malls, on the street, and in their cars has grown to 3.5 million men and women. Economists John Lott and David Mustard have suggested that these new laws contributed to the drop in homicide and violent crime rates. Based on 25 years of correlated statics from all of the more than 3,000 American counties, Lott and Mustard conclude that adoption of these statutes has deterred criminals from confrontation crime and caused murder and violent crime to fall faster in states that adopted this policy than in states that did not." [10]

These are just some of the examples showing that more guns does not mean more homicides. If you go further into the reading, you can find more examples as well.

Pro claims, "we'd have to get rid of it, or go back to an understanding that it only protects state militias." This is just a statement with no substance or evidence so I am free to reject it. Pro has fail to address my concern with banning guns and the United States' Second Amendment. This is a fallacy in of itself of a circular argument, "a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."

Premise: We have to get rid of guns.

Conclusion: The United States should ban most guns and confiscate them.

Gun violence has always been a problem in the United States in the past 40 years and even more, except now, it is being viewed differently, especially on how media is putting it into the faces of its citizens. I urge pro to not use emotion when seeing gun violence, but use sound judgment in finding a solution to this problem. I challenge pro to look up data in regards to the number of homicides per year from guns in the United States and challenge the conception that more guns means more homicides.

Debate Round No. 2


con wrote a lot of fluff. and then rested on that study that was posted at harvard.

here is a blow by blow critique of that study. the authors were comparing the USA to random countries. if you compare the usa to developed counties there is a causation.;


Going into this debate, I was hoping to have an actual debate with pro, but pro showed no evidence to support her premise leading to the banning of guns. In the last round, pro simply posted a link showing the views and critique of Eric Garland. I did not come into this debate to debate Eric Garland. I came in here to debate pro and show that pro's premises are not sufficient to the conclusion.

One of pro's premise is using the Oxford link that did the study of gun ownership in homes leading to a higher risk of homicides and suicide. I accepted that indeed this risk can lead to death, but argued that it should not be a premise in banning guns. Everything will have risk and I used the example of the risk of eating bacon. Although there is risk, the banning of eating bacon would be considered ridiculous. Pro then compares my claims as comparing bacon to guns, which I did not. I used the comparison of risk.

My next main point is showing that there is no correlation with more guns and higher homicide rates in the United States. I wanted to based my argument on strictly what happened in the United States and not compare it to other nations since the United States is different from other nations in many ways. Does other nations have a civil right to own guns? No. Do they have a strong gun lobby? No. Do other nations have the same cultural experience as the United States? No. These were my considerations and concerns when comparing the United States to other nations. It is just plain different and ridiculous to compare two different nations although there might be some similarities. That is why I avoided comparing what works in the United States and what works in other nations. This also addresses pro's views of the banning in Australia, which I provided evidence for, but pro made no effort in recognizing this point at all.

I have made many other arguments against pro such as finding a common ground with the civil freedom of an individual as expressed in the United States' Second Amendment. Pro claims we have to get rid of it, which I saw as an infringement on the rights of other. I see this as not having common grounds since pro refuses to accept that this should be a right with no evidence.

Pro also fails to have any evidence on the correlation of having more guns and higher homicide rates in the United States. Rather, pro just attacked my premise on this point. Pro attempted to attack my Harvard study with a link that she has posted. I only used the relevant evidence in the study to support my premise that once again, there is no correlation with more guns and higher homicide rates in just strictly looking at the United States. I have accepted in round 2 that the study does use international countries in the paper, but did not use that data as I find it irrelevant to my premise because I only wanted to strictly look at what has happened in the United States. In pro's last link, Mr. Garland focus was mostly comparing different nations, which I had rejected in finding relevant in banning guns in the United States.

In conclusion, I did not find pro's premises strongly supporting the conclusion of banning and confiscating most guns in the United States. Pro focus on this debate was to attack my premises and in exchange, not support her premises, which I criticized. How can you have a conclusion if your premises does not follow?
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by geho89 2 years ago
Sorry for the confusion! I meant pro instead con in my debate. I shall make this correction in the next round. Silly newbie me.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago

a working link with the other links included in it
No votes have been placed for this debate.