Gun bans will never work
Debate Rounds (3)
I need an opponent who supports some form of gun ban.
Observation 2: The resolution doesn't clarify a country so I can show gun bans working wherever.
I will post stuff next round since this round seemd to be just for clarification/what things a side decides to argue.
Firstly, I will prove how gun bans do not reduce gun ownership. It is well documented in Australia, many owners of assault rifles simply buried their guns and kept ownership of them after the ban introduced by Michael Howard. These gun owners recorded where they buried them and would dig them up later for other purposes. These gun owners often recorded these guns as destroyed, but for all intents and purposes still owned them, as any reasonable person will be forced to conclude. There were also at least ten hundred thousand or so assault rifles which simply went missing in the system after the ban. I doubt all of this was due to simple loss of paperwork, as such guns required many licenses to own in the first place. In the end, the law had no effect upon ownership of guns. Gun ownership simply moved underground, often literally. Now my opponent will say there were no gun massacres in Australia after the gun ban, which is a topic I will cover soon.
When you look at countries that have banned the most "dangerous" types of gun, sometimes you will discover less gun violence. Discounting the obvious drop in suicides by guns, most of this is caused by drops in crime statistics. In Australia when guns were banned most violent crimes dropped off hugely, but it had already been doing so any way.
So there you go, you really can't draw any link between gun bans reducing gun ownership in any meaningful sense of the term, nor between bans and lessening of gun violence. Thank you.
Gun bans aren't primarly made to reduce gun ownership. It is primarily made to ban the use of guns. Owning a gun is different then using one, someone can own a sword but it isn't a offensive weapon if put on display or kept in a case. My point is the gun bans work, not all of them in all the countries directly reduce crime but that doesn't matter, what matters is that when a gun ban is set up, guns are not used to kill people.
My opponent claims oh the gun bans don't have effect, or
I will just show some examples of gun laws that when put into effect work, it doesn't matter if the owners have guns or not what matters is if they are used for the wrong purposes.
Some instances in which gun bans work
"In 2012 the number of gun related violent crimes per 100,000 was 10.2 or one per every 10,000 people, which based on the current population means that almost 32,000 Americans were gun crime victims
"Whereas in the UK that figure was 0.25 per 100,000 people, which works out to 147 people and this was the result of banning guns.
Italy also has a gun ban which has resulted in less crime.
Conclusion: As you can see in some cases gun bans work and are effective, maybe not in all cases but some.
IEnglishman forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.