Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website -! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Should The US Ban The Ownership of Fire Arms?

Opening Argument

What do you think on this issue?
I am personally against this.
  1. ?

    9 votes
    1. Yes
    2. No

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +

Status: Open Debate


  • No, the US should not ban the ownership of Fire arms. 

    This would cause many outbursts, rallies, fights, lawsuits and violence. 
  • Yes, also I love this website. I will be telling people about this and advertising this.
  • No, it's not realistically possible.  There are as many privately owned guns as there are people in the US.  There's no way to track all of them down, and US citizens will not voluntarily give them up.  States that have passed "assault weapons" laws can't even get their residents to turn them in.
  • No, I agree with CYDharta.
  • I agree as well.  Trying to enforce it will be a logistical nightmare.  Let Trump focus on his already-identified challenges.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • While we cannot completely ban the fire arms, I will support regulation that will significantly crack down on personal firearms. Lets make it more expensive to maintain a license, and add more vetting process to get one.  Essentially, if we impose a tax, it will decrease demand.  We cannt ban completely, but can make a lot of progress.
  • @inc4t Progress towards what?  What are you trying to accomplish?  Is crime your main concern, or are you simply trying to reduce the number of guns in civilian hands?  The problem with what you're suggesting is that, while it would likely have an effect on guns bought by law-abiding citizens, it would have no effect on guns carried by criminals.  It wouldn't effect crime at all.
  • @CYDdharta , by ensuring that it is difficult to get firearms for general population, that will help to prevent it leaking out to the criminals.  My goal would be to reduce crime. Your point is that you question if that leakage prevention is real, as you believe it will not help crime at all.  
    I think it will to some degree, but also agree that we need more direct ways to fight this issue against criminal posessions. 
  • @inc4t ; Just to clarify, my position is not that gun never go from the lawful market to the criminal market, some do, but I believe this approach would be counter-productive to reducing crime. Whatever gains were made at stopping crimes would be overtaken by the loss of crimes stopped by lawful gun owners. By conservative estimates, over 100,000 crimes a year are stopped by lawful gun owners, with some estimates going into the millions. Increasing regulations will affect lawful gun owners, but they will not affect criminals as they, by definition, do not abide by the law. Additionally, increased regulation and taxes will disproportionately affect the poor, as they can least afford compliance; yet they are the ones most victimized by crime.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch