The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

gun bans wont work (creating new laws to ban ALL guns)

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,049 times Debate No: 30944
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




gun bans will not work.
the laws we have now should not be changed or made more stricter


There are changes that can be made to reduce gun-related crime.

I actually don't fully agree with an assault weapons ban. It only covers a fraction of the gun crimes committed in the US, and it wouldn't get all of the weapons covered by it out of the hands of criminals. However, I see the opposition to it as silly: It was in effect for 10 years and nobody challenged its constitutionality. The Supreme Court even agreed that it is reasonable that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right. In addition, the government did not try to take over, and nobody confiscated guns (existing weapons were grandfathered, they were legal to possess and transfer).

Now, universal background checks are common sense and I strongly agree with this idea. If you look at most recent shooters, you'll notice a trend of buying guns in scenarios where they are either not given a background check or given an insufficient one. We could have prevented these shootings by not doing a half-assed job of making sure we aren't selling guns to known criminals and mentally ill people. And, of course, unless you are a felon or are mentally ill, you have nothing to worry about.

A commonly raised counter-argument is that criminals will get guns through the black market. However, you have to take into account that people have a limit to their determination, and that most criminals are complete idiots who aren't that well-connected anyway. There is a golden rule for security - if there is something meant to prevent someone from doing something, then it will be circumvented by someone determined to get around it. You can't get around this. You can't stop 100% of violence. But you can make it difficult enough that most people won't have the willpower to do it. It is valid to argue that this comes at the cost of inconveniencing legitimate, law-abiding gun owners. This is why I mainly advocate background checks - there isn't much to worry about unless you are mentally ill or are a convicted felon.

I feel that I should also point out that nobody is proposing a complete ban on all firearms.
Debate Round No. 1


I know and understand that the government is not trying to put a full stop on guns.
Now how would these laws work?
Say we ban guns in general. Who's that going to affect?
Good people follow laws, bad people don't follow laws. Banning guns would be a law (any type of gun).
You would be taking guns out of good people's hands while it would have no effect on the criminals who don't follow laws.
And you can't say we would be able to take guns away from criminals. It's not possible. There are way to many guns out there for the government to take away, (any gun).
Chicago for example has very strict gun control yet has one of the biggest gun murder rates in America.
So many guns used by criminals are obtained illegally, how would gun laws help this? How is the government doing background checks going to stop a man from selling a gun to someone in a dark ally? (You know what I mean)
My point is, they wouldn't work to stop criminals only to keep actual law abiding citizens from owning guns.
Criminals don't follow laws and there is nothing they can do to take away their guns.
They can't track millions of illegal immigrants and there's a chance they can track any guns?
Making stricter gun laws would only be a burden on the law abiding citizens.


There are plenty of illegally obtained guns. I'm not denying that. However, many guns that were used in high-profile shootings were actually obtained through legal channels. The fact that known felons and people with documented mental health issues are getting guns through legal channels is an embarrassment, and something needs to be done about it. While it is impossible to know if these shooters would have bought their gun off the black market if they knew that they couldn't acquire a gun as easily as they did, it would stop part of them. This is as good as you can get with anything like this - there will always be one very determined person who will get one anyway, but it still would prevent countless others from doing so. While criminals don't follow laws, they have to deal with those of us who do. We can't directly take guns from criminals, but we can make it much more difficult for them to get them in the first place.

Furthermore, background checks wouldn't have to be a burden on law abiding citizens. If background checks were able to be performed from a centralized database over the Internet, background checks would be about as easy as a Google search. This type of system would have potential for more thorough background checks that are also quicker.

Now, black market gun sales would have a spike in popularity if universal background checks are implemented. This problem could only be dealt with by tighter enforcement of gun trafficking laws. I do support Mayors Against Illegal Guns on making gun trafficking a federal crime - in fact, I heard that the Senate just reached a deal to do just that.
Debate Round No. 2


i think drugs are a good example of how easy it is to sneak something into the U.S.
yes i understand there is a big difference, but that is not my point.
also im talking about banning all guns, not just some. there are many people who believe all guns should be banned.
this is the case i was talking about.
how are we going to do background checks for criminals who obtain them illegaly?
again Chicago is a great example on how gun laws would not work.
1982 chicago banned all hand guns, of course besides police, etc.
look at the crime rate. all those gun murders were dont with illegal guns.

Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

"Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

Washington DC 's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis ' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals

yes i understand that these are sarcasm comments, but i think they make really good points.


As I have stated before on rounds 1 and 2, the main thing which stricter gun control laws would do is make it more difficult for felons and the mentally ill to get guns through legal channels. Most guns used in high-profile shootings can be traced back to a legal gun sale where there was an insufficient or no background check. If we make this impossible, then criminals will have to resort to illegal means to get guns, which would be more difficult and more expensive. This would be something we have little control over beyond attempting to tighten security against black marketeers. While a determined criminal WILL get a gun, not all criminals are determined enough to get a gun illegally. And, of course, anyone who isn't a felon or mentally ill would pass a background check, therefore, they would not be subject to the extra need of determination for acquiring a gun.

A total ban could only work as well as it could be enforced. However, the golden rule of security prevents this. There is always a loophole.

Your murder rates are slightly (read: extremely) exaggerated. Washington's murder rate is 23 per 100,000. Indianapolis's murder rate is 13 per 100,000. In addition, Washington's population density is 10,298/sq mi while Indianapolis has a population density of 2,273/sq mi. Higher density cities naturally have higher crime rates. Therefore, this is a very inaccurate comparison.

Furthermore, Chicago's homicide rate is 15.2 as of 2010. This is fairly close to Indianapolis.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
as you can see i said gun bans wont work... i said ALL GUNS
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by samurai 4 years 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Said ALL GUNS... never really got an argument for it
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con argued that gun bans could work, just not as effectively as everyone would hope for, which was enough to fulfill his burden of proof in the debate. Pro on the other hand inflated nuerous statistics for his arguments and automatically assumed that gun bans lead to higher crime rates (correlation =/= causation). Arguments to the pro since he proved his case much better then the pro proved his, and sources as well since pro cited a lot of incorrect data.