CreateDebate


Debate Info

91
112
YES NO
Debate Score:203
Arguments:203
Total Votes:217
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (88)
 
 NO (91)

Debate Creator

Joel_Mathews(2278) pic



Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?

YES

Side Score: 91
VS.

NO

Side Score: 112
1 point

............................................... and what country are you from ??

Side: YES
Dermot(2916) Clarified
1 point

Republic of Ireland ................,...............................................

Side: YES
1 point

Controlled not prohibited.

There are many private uses for guns, farmers, professional feral animal hunters, sports events etc etc where the use of guns could be allowed under strict conditions.

The less weapons in society the less opportunity to use them for the wrong purpose

Side: YES
LichPotato(362) Disputed
1 point

Firearm regulation only affects those willing to comply with the laws; I.E. those who are least likely to "use them for the wrong purpose" in the first place.

Side: NO
Amarel(1849) Clarified
1 point

There are good, law abiding people who, nonetheless, should not own a gun. Certain regulations will reduce guns in the hands of innocent, though incapable would-be gun buyers.

Having strict prohibitions against certain people owning firearms (such as violent felons), and a requirement for professional sellers to check, allows society to add longer sentences to criminals who acquire guns through illegal means while regular citizens are relatively unaffected.

Side: YES
1 point

It's ridiculous to blame an object with no cognitive thought. People kill people, plain and simple.

Side: YES
1 point

Okay Irish, let's take states and cities who have banned guns, California and Chicago. No guns allowed, violence is through the roof and worse than when guns were legal.

Side: YES
Dermot(2916) Disputed
1 point

Ok American let's look at some real facts as opposed to your own personal mantra ......

But advocates for tougher restrictions say Trump’s and Christie’s arguments do not take into account two key features of the Chicago's gun landscape. The first is that, though it’s hard to get a gun in Chicago, it’s much easier to get one in the city’s immediate vicinity. The second feature is the city’s high level of gang activity, and that gangs are both adept at procuring guns illegally and prone to involvement in shooting incidents.

“I think that it’s more likely that if Chicago did not have tough gun laws they would have higher rates of gun violence than they do have,” said Philip Cook, a Duke public policy professor and economist who works with the University of Chicago Crime Lab, leading its multi-city underground gun market study.

Cook recently studied the origins of guns recovered in Chicago between 2009 and 2013 using data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. Of the more than 7,000 guns he studied, “the great majority came from the people who were members of gangs,” Cook said, adding that "the gang conflict in Chicago has been particularly lethal over the decades and part of the reason is those organizations are skilled at accessing guns."

A lot of that access comes from outside Illinois. Cook said he found that 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest were from out of state. Twenty-four percent of the total pool of guns came from Indiana, which is "not regulated at all," he said. Chicago gangs often have connections to gangs in Gary, Indiana, and the two cities almost butt up against each other.

The study also found that 22 percent of the recovered guns came from parts of Cook County outside the city, where gun dealers and gun shows are legal.

Side: NO
Amarel(1849) Disputed
1 point

This post makes the pro-gun argument pretty well. How could any guns possibly cross state borders if it is illegal to transport weapons across state borders? Isn't that activity banned?

The idea of banning guns in the US always ignores the number of guns in the US (and the world) as well as the strength of a black market when it has the support of so many people (as it would here).

Also, the idea that any state is "not regulated at all" is laughable in it's inaccuracy. Sort of calls into question the professors other statements.

Side: NO
1 point

Guns don't kill people by their selves but people uses guns to kill people.

Side: YES
0 points

The use of guns in America should be prohibited at least in urban areas. There is no logical reason to state that you need a firearm in an urban setting. If you say you need firearms to protect you and your family that is law enforcement job, regardless of their current capability to do so. If you say that it is to protect yourself from "tyranny" or some such government, do you honestly expect that in the 21st century a government set up like America's would be able to become an all-powerful malevolent state? Additionally America's military is the most sophisticated in the modern world so if you were to face them you wouldn't stand a chance regardless of how heavily civilians are armed. (For those of you who would then say that the military would help you fight tyranny, then why would civilians need guns?).

From a moral perspective saying that only a few "bad apples" give the rest of the gun owning population a bad name and that the good ones should keep their weapons immediately put value to the lives lost via the countless shootings in America (the live of fellow human beings are less important than your personal desires) and therefore very selfish.

Side: YES
Amarel(1849) Disputed
0 points

It is not the job of police to protect you. They can't do it. They are almost always too far away. It is thier job to find who attacked you and bring them to a judge.

You think it's moral to take a gun away from a law abiding citizen, leaving them at the mercy criminals carrying illegally, just because of your selfish desires? Your morality sounds twisted. Most shootings don't happen at the hands of legal gun owners. I mean really very few. More deaths are caused by legal trampolines. Do you wanna get on a moral high horse to ban trampolines?

Side: NO
Monty(1) Disputed
1 point

No if the police were to do their jobs in situational crime prevention properly then civilians would be protected from all forms in all arenas of crime, you say it's not the job of the police to "protect you", but forgive me if i'm wrong but the official motto of the US police academy is "To Protect and to Serve". That might possibly mean that they intend to protect, if they are almost always too far away then, again, they aren't doing their jobs properly.

I never said to take away weapons from all the population only those in urban areas for reasons I have mentioned. Its always the way with the "If you take away our guns we'll get shot at by criminals!" argument that you COMPLETELY FORGET the fact that the police wont just stop when they get all the legal registered guns, they'll go after the illegal guns and gun rings more than anything else. You say most shootings don't happen in the hands of legal gun owners, it doesn't matter if they are legal or not the murder is still being carried out via guns therefore they should be prohibited accordingly.

The trampoline analogy is a bit stupid as they are toys which have had their health and safety elements removed (side netting) and aren't actual weapons designed originally as a means of waging war. My morality is not off for wanting to take away guns from a relatively stupid modernized population (14th), but i'd be interested to hear what moral doctrine you follow.

Side: YES
-1 points

Yes of course they should be banned is America so more violent than other societies that's it's people need the right to carry guns ?

I ask these question many times of pro gun people ........

Are guns good for societies as if so how do they improve society ?

If guns do indeed improve societies why don't countries worldwide introduce guns into society ?

How come even the police force in my country do not carry guns guns and yet the country functions perfectly ?

Side: YES
outlaw60(8861) Disputed
1 point

What you say Dermot will banning guns keep guns out of the hands of criminals ?

I ask you this question so what you got to say ?

Side: NO
Dermot(2916) Disputed
1 point

Criminals will always get guns legally or not and so what as they use them mostly on each other ?

Do you honestly think making the carrying of guns legal will in some improve society ?

Side: YES
Atrag(5021) Clarified
1 point

Have you seen Westworld on HBO? You would be first generation I guess.

Side: YES
outlaw60(8861) Disputed
1 point

Should people not have the right to protect their family , their property and their self from someone wanting to do them harm ? Being a typical Leftist as you are will Government protect anyone from a criminal with a firearm ?

Side: NO
Dermot(2916) Disputed
1 point

Why is America so incredibly violent as a society that it's citizens need guns to protect themselves ?

Ah so now now you say I'm a typical leftist and this strengthens your argument how ?

Is it really that bad over there that criminals are attacking citizens at home and on the streets ?

Side: YES
outlaw60(8861) Disputed
1 point

The Republic of Ireland is the deadliest place to live in the Irish and British isles - startling new figures have confirmed.

An Independent.ie analysis of homicide rates over the last decade reveals that you are almost six times more likely to be shot and killed in the 26 counties as you are in England/Wales.

And, contrary to popular belief, the gun homicide rate in the Irish Republic was more than double that of Northern Ireland for the ten years from 2005 to 2015.

A top criminologist has now claimed "Ireland stands at the abyss" when it comes to violent murderous crimes generally and "specifically involving guns".

John O'Keeffe, Head of the School of Psychology & Criminology, City Colleges' Dublin, said An Garda Siochana has not been given the necessary tools to face dangerous crime gangs.

"Gang members know that if they are confronted by gardai they will almost certainly have the upper hand when it comes to firearms.

"Irish police have extendable batons and pepper spray - Irish criminals have Glochs and AK47's - there can only be one winner.

"Modern Irish criminals regard An Garda Siochana and their tools as play things - in the meantime, people get eviscerated in the cross fire generated by these gun toting savages."

Your ignorance has been exposed you Anti Gun NUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: NO
Dermot(2916) Disputed
2 points

I know we all live in a constant state of fear over here as gun crime takes a grip on society :)

Gun crime in the republic is carried out by criminals and ex paramilitaries who hold firearms illegally , and I like fellow citizens could not give a fuck if theses scumbags illiminate each other in their turf wars .......

Ireland’s homicide rate is broadly similar to its EU neighbours. It stands at about 1.1 per 100,000 citizens on an annual basis. This is slightly higher than the UK, with a homicide rate of 0.96 per 100,000. France is slightly higher again at 1.2 persons per 100,000. Ireland’s central statistics office states that a total of 1,068 Irish people died by homicide between 2004 and 2014.

Dublin boxing weigh-in shooting death linked to gangland feud

Read more

Within that statistic, however, there is a disturbing trend. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), approximately 38% of Ireland’s homicides are gun killings. In the UK, only 7% of homicides are by firearms. Ireland’s gun killings, on a per-capita basis, are around five times higher than most member states within the EU.

In an otherwise relatively peaceful society, it appears from these figures that a violent gun culture, associated with drug trafficking, has taken hold in disadvantaged areas in a number of Ireland’s cities.......

So if I'm anti gun how does that make me a nut ?

Also as I asked if guns improve society why are you making a case against them as in citing gun crime ?

You're a pro gun nut aren't you :)

Side: YES
Keal505(6) Disputed
1 point

Guns are not responsible for the violence in the U.S. The fact is we are violent by nature, we live war, we love fighting (not saying it's right) guns are simply a tool many use for violence. If there were no guns here it would be bats, knives, bars etc... It wouldn't stop it. Besides the reason we have the 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government. And if anyone thinks that is not a possible issues in our time that's a fantasy utopia. If you know your history, the first step to placing a tyrannical government is to disarm the populace.

Side: NO
Dermot(2916) Disputed
1 point

Guns are indeed partially responsible for violence as they are made for the sole purpose of causing injury ; yes humans are indeed violent by nature and yes guns are a tool used to gain the upper hand .

So are you suggesting if there were no guns were in circulation crime figures would be exactly the same only cared out by different weapons ?

Oddly enough this phenomenon is not prevelant in mostly gun free Europe as I don't see a spate of violence by people brandishing clubs , knives , bars , etc ,etc .

Are you honestly uggesting the reason the US does not have a tyrannical government is because the citizens are allowed own guns ?

Do you honestly think an unorganised mostly untrained population could even challenge a highly trained US military if your leader was indeed tyrannical ?

Side: YES
Amarel(1849) Disputed
1 point

US culture is actually more violent than a lot of other developed nations. Our crime rates are higher across the board. But we have a culture legal gun ownership as well. Which means that trying to take guns away would turn law abiding citizen into criminals as they would refuse.

Violent society will find away. I'm thinking of Ireland in the 70s and 80s. Was it a perfect little war without guns?

The value of guns and gun ownership varies by geography and culture. Consider Switzerland. They have lots of guns and lots of peace. Now consider Syria. The point is that guns aren't the problem and there absence is not the solution.

Side: NO
Dermot(2916) Disputed
2 points

Ireland had its problems in the North of Ireland which was hardly a war , and far from perfect whatever that means .

Guns are not a problem so why are they banned in most countries ?

Would the introduction of guns improve our societies then and if so how ?

Side: YES
Amarel(1849) Disputed
1 point

I ask these question many times of pro gun people ........

Are guns good for societies as if so how do they improve society ?

Guns aren't good for society (outside of legit hunters needs) any more than fighting is good for society. If you asked me if fighting is good for society I would say "no" while recognizing the value in being able to fight.

Side: NO
FromWithin(5083) Disputed
-1 points

What kind of fool wants to take away other's rights to enjoy their protection and enjoyment of guns.

Any fool who want to do so, should also want to take away alcohol that DEOS NO GOOD FOR SOCIETY.

It's sickening we have people who are such control freaks. This is why Trump won!

Side: NO
Dermot(2916) Disputed
1 point

Ah i I see , what an incredibly strong argument :) you call anyone who disagrees with you a fool whilst demonstrating admirably the qualities of a prize fool ; get back to me when you have an actual point to make ?

Side: YES
4 points

It's ridiculous to blame an object with no cognitive thought. People kill people, plain and simple.

Side: NO
1 point

Exactly, if we are going to blame guns for the violence, etc, then shouldn't we blame the knife and fork for our obesity problems in the USA.

Side: NO
Dermot(2916) Disputed
1 point

Yes , ovens don't cook food people do , but if you want to eat warm well cooked food you're going to need the oven .

Guns may not kill people, but people with guns do, and they do so more often and more efficiently than people without guns.

Side: YES
1 point

No, we can blame the guns as the guns are used in killing people. Without guns in america, there would be a lot less deaths. You cant blame the knife and fork because even if you ban the knife and fork, people who are obese will use spoons/hands to eat. What a joke foratag

Side: YES
1 point

It looks to me that you don't really care about people killing people. Maybe one day someone that you love or cherish will pass on early due to unfortunate reasons then we will see whether it is just people killing people.

Side: YES
1 point

But you do realise that the gun is the object causing many deaths..... especially in the wrong hands. If guns were banned, what would gangsters/ mobsters use? Knives? Wrench? Crowbar? All these items do damage but not so efficiently as a gun. by banning guns, there would be a significant drop of deaths in america

Side: YES
3 points

Swimming pools are statistically more dangerous. .

Side: NO
Atrag(5021) Clarified
1 point

And the US has both guns and swimming pools. How much more dangerous is this than only allowing swimming pools?

Side: YES
Amarel(1849) Disputed
1 point

Provided a ban works, allowing both is "175 child deaths per year" more dangerous than just allowing swimming pools. On the other hand, allowing both is "550 child deaths per year" more dangerous than just allowing guns. The contrast is more stark if you consider the ease with which we could effectively eliminate swimming pools compared to the difficulties with eliminating firearms.

Source:

“Drowning vs Gun Death” in the book titled FREAKONOMICS by Levitt & Dubner in the chapter: “What makes a perfect parent?” To summarize the data from around the year 2000 (for ONLY the United States) 550 children under the age of 10 drown each year in the approx. 11,000 privately-owned backyard swimming pools. This does not include bathtubs, public swimming pools, hot tubs, lakes, rivers, oceans, etc. Compare that to 175 children under the age of 10 are killed each year by the approx. 200 million privately-owned guns (probably finding Mommy or Daddy’s gun and playing with it). Therefor, likelihood of death by private pool is 1 in 11,000 vs. 1 in 1million-plus by death by private gun.

Side: YES
0 points

Prove it... Where is your evidence to support your statement?

Side: YES
Amarel(1849) Disputed
1 point

I should have said more dangerous to young children.

It was a question posed in Freakonomics; "what's more dangerous?" After reviewing the data, economist Steven Levitt stated "Yeah, the answer to that question is incredibly easy. And the swimming pool is far, far more dangerous than the gun when it comes to young children."

This is not a very incredible statement. Consider the huge huge quantity of guns compared to the relative scarcity of personal swimming pools. Given this disparity, every death by swimming pool is going to have a larger statistical impact on the level of danger as a measure of deaths per unit than deaths by gun.

Side: NO
2 points

good luck getting guns out of the hands of criminals ... till then, I'll keep mine thank you very much

Side: NO
2 points

The U.S. became the most powerful nation in the world because of our drive to fight, we create weapons that are better than others, train harder and it all came from the American people. yes this was stolen and atrocities occurred; however, as time moved on, we know stand shoulder to shoulder with whites, native Americans, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc and fight together. And because our government has such impressive weaponry. It is necessary that the mass responsible gun owners keep their arms incase we need to fight our government. They may have better weapons and bombs but when things go horrible, the people stand up for each other no matter race and creed. We need our guns, and we must accept the bad that comes with this responsibility that we have as Americans

Side: NO
2 points

As a "liberal gun owner", (there are millions of us), I say NO! Should the use of guns by those with ignorant and hateful reasons for using (owning) them be restricted ,......YES!

Side: NO
1 point

Depends... what do you want to prohibit them from doing?

Side: NO
1 point

No. Mentally healthy law abisiding people have the right to own guns for protection. The Second Amendment says so.

Side: NO
Dermot(2916) Disputed
1 point

So how do you define a mentally healthy citizen ?

Americans are more a risk from getting accidentally killed by one of their own guns in their own homes than by intruders or criminals ; is American society so fucked up that Americans are terrified in their own homes ?

Please do not trot out the usual mantra used by pro gun people as in ..... ' it's to protect ourselves from a future possibly tyrannical government ' ......

Side: YES
Sitar(3117) Clarified
1 point

Someone who does not meet the diagnostic criterea for one or more major mental illnesses.

Side: YES
1 point

-Gun ownership and gun deaths negatively correlate over time. According to Dept of Justice statistics, from 1993 to 2011, gun homicide decreased 39% while nonfatal gun crimes decreased 69%. During the same time period, gun sales increased nationally. Guns aren’t the problem. On a larger scale, we live in the most peaceful time in human history with the most guns in human history.

-In 1976, Washington DC enacted strict gun control, prohibiting a citizen from using a gun even in self-defense. Following these measures, the cities homicide rate nearly doubled in just over a decade. A ban disarms the lawful.

-Worldwide, only 1/3 of gun owners comply with gun confiscation laws. In the US, that would mean 230 million guns flooding the black market. A ban is not enforceable.

Side: NO

No matter what system you make to close the loophole of people getting guns, there will always be some genius who can beat that system. Kill whatever genius and there will be another one and another one after that. It will go on forever. There's always someone out there smarter than the person who closes any loophole. And whoever that person is will be able to find ways to sell guns and spread the word in the criminal world.

I mentioned the following quote in another guns debate:

"The point of security is not to eliminate risk. That is impossible. The point of security is to bring risk down to an acceptable level."

Going by the very logic of prohibiting guns, giving everyone guns and defeating the point of going into a movie theater and trying to shoot a bunch of people in the first place is what will prevent these shootings.

And don't try to make the argument of cross fire because civilians have stopped shooters using guns:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

Anyone saying it would cause more people to die in the cross fire is a moron, as I've read of other cases where the civilians does so little as aim their gun at the shooter from an angle where it would only take a split second to fire the gun but maybe one whole second to aim the gun at the civilian and the shooter just drops their gun and puts his/her hands up.

Side: NO

I love the liberals wanting to ban guns. So if we were to disarm you, and Trump became the violent dictator you all claim he will be, how do plan on opposing him again?

Side: NO
0 points

To all the deceptive liars on this site who say Democrats do not want to take our guns.....

LISTEN TO THESE FOOLS! These are the people on the Left and residing in the Democrat Party who most definitely DO WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS!

Anyone who denies this is a total waste of time to debate.

Alcohol causes far more problems than guns but the hypocrites on the Left say nothing about something they like to do.

TOTAL HYPOCRITES!

Side: NO