The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

USA should adapt Australian Gun Laws

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Kebab44 has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 114963
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




It"s simple: Australia enacted strict gun control in 1996 and since then, there has been either zero or one mass shooting (depending on what you consider a mass shooting). America let"s every citizen carry a gun and it has resulted on an average of one mass shooting every ten days in 2018. If America issued the same buyback scheme and gun laws John Howard enacted, the mass shooting count would drop significantly, if not completely.



Before I begin I would like to state that it is my first debate on here. Anyways, I accept your challenge.

I live in New Zealand, and we have similar gun laws to Australia, if not almost the same. Our police do not carry weapons, and neither does most of our population. However, I am going to speak in terms of Australia, as that is what you are wanting.

As you may know, Australia does have a low mass shooting rate, and America has a high one. However, returning to the system which Australia would not benefit them for the near future.

Firstly, I do need to admit that America's system is not perfect. What I think should occur is that America makes it harder to get access to a firearm, with better screening for terrorists, mentally ill, etc. However, the people who pass the screenings should have access to firearms. There have been numerous occasions where mass shootings occur but are prevented due to someone else using a firearm and preventing it from occurring before it does. An example of this was in Chicago, and an Uber-Driver with a gunshot and wounded a shooter before he could cause any significant fatalities. This is an example of when guns are used correctly.

Now, you need to understand that all because Australia has implemented strict gun laws, it does not mean that people do not have guns. No matter how strict, criminals would always obtain weapons. Gangs and mobs have guns, and they get them through illegal methods. Now, if I was an unwanted victim of this mob, I would like a gun to defend myself. What else would you do?

Just to go back to point. Mass-shootings would definitely be prevented in the United States if stricter screening was put in place, that is where I agree with you. However, going to what Australia would be doing would not be good, as people would always obtain guns.
Debate Round No. 1


Australian Gun Laws do not restrict the purchase of weapons, but makes it hard for the general public to purchase them and there is a long waiting period. While it may be nessecary for America to have guns for protection, a simple Glock could do the trick. A semi-automatic kills a large number of people quickly and that was the reason it was made. In Australia, someone could buy a Glock as long as they are a registered criminal or if they have a history of violence. The only people who have access to "the big guns" are hunters in rural Australia who have a kangaroo hunting license. A lot of people will use this excuse in America, saying they like hunting, but a majority of the population lives in suburbs. Australian Gun Laws does not ban weapons all together, it bans semi-automatics and allows most of the public to buy simple guns which cannot massacre a large group at once.


I would have to disagree when you said: "A lot of people will use this excuse in America, saying they like hunting, but a majority of the population lives in suburbs", this is untrue. I live in the suburbs and I go hunting during the holidays. Your location of which you live does not affect your activities. I would have to say from a point of objective, most people who say they go hunting, probably go hunting.

Firstly, we need to define the term "Semi-Automatic". A semi-automatic weapon is a gun which shoots as fast as you pull the trigger. Pistols fit under this category. Banning Semi-Automatics would pretty much ban all guns which can shoot when you pull the trigger. Guns which do not fit under this category are older guns such as bolt-action rifles, etc. When I googled a semi-automatic, pistols did appear as they technically count.

All guns are capable of killing. Automatics should be banned, but not semi-automatics. All we need to do is make it harder in America to obtain a firearm, with all of the restrictions, but do not restrict guns altogether.
Debate Round No. 2


Ok fine, a pistol can be considered as a semi-automatic, but you don"t need an AR-15 to hunt. AR-15s are the primary weapon used in mass shootings and they"re horrible for hunting, so why should the common person have them? They have no purpose other than to massacre people.


AR-15s are designed to hunt, and that is where I believe the flaw in the American system is. But, the common person does not usually have AR-15s, if they own a gun, it's usually a hunting rifle or a standard pistol. AR-15s should be a military weapon only. The only change that needs to be made in improving the screening system.
Debate Round No. 3


Yes, but allowing automatic rifles to flow freely into the public is dangerous and this is where the Australian system has succeeded and America has not. Automatic weapons can be bought at Walmart! The freedom to by such dangerous weapons in America is in dire need to be put in check. In Australia, hunting rifles can be purchased, but it doesn"t result in a massacre so hunting rifles are fine, but the dangerous guns are open to the public, which is what Australia has fixed. You yourself said the AR-15 is a problem, but that"s my point.


Yeah, like I said, I do agree with the comment that the American screening system is flawed. However, I do think that having access to basic firearms is essential.

Now you said that "I agree with you." However, this is not true. Your debate topic is using the Australian Gun system in the United States. I do agree about restricting some automatic and semi-automatic weapons, however, I disagree with the statement that we should use the Australian gun system.

The American gun system and the Australian gun system are different. Now, I am not into the constitution rubbish, I just personally agree with the statement that guns can benefit someone in the daily life. People will always have access to guns, and guns are important in the sense of preventing someone from hurting another in the event of one obtaining a gun illegally.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
This is a very good debate. One statement I would like to mention is that Australia has extremely strict gun laws, as you already know. But Australia has banned toy guns such as any Airsoft gun. So if America copies the Australian laws, then thousands of Americans will loose their toy guns that are completely harmless.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.