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

Gun bans will never work

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 581 times Debate No: 65039
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I will show that banning guns never works.

I need an opponent who supports some form of gun ban.


Observation: Since the resolution clearly states "gun bans will never work" All I have to prove is that gun bans have worked or can work.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


I think my opponent will be hard pressed to show a gun ban that ever worked in any sense of the word, be it in reducing gun ownership or in reducing gun violence.

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.


My opponent provides some example about Australia and how the gun ban impacted them. I think this example was very interesting but it was only one example and it was Australia out of all countries.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


IEnglishman forfeited this round.


vote for me due to conduct and forfiet
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
They work perfectly if you are government that does not want the folks to stop you from tyranny.Or if you are a private criminal.An armed people are hard for government to enforce communism,fascism, naziism, or real socialism.
Posted by UchihaMadara 1 year ago
I would do this only if there is a voter elo limit.
Conservative noobs give fvcking stupid votes on gun debates.
Posted by IEnglishman 1 year ago
Anything which is used to propel a bullet.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
Can you define Gun for me?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture