The Instigator
debate-u
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
G131994
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

An Assault Rifles ban will not reduce killings.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
debate-u
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,049 times Debate No: 31523
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

debate-u

Pro

Assault Rifle-Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.

Ban-To prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of.

Reduce-To diminsh in size, amount, extent, or number.

I have stated the definitions. I will allow my opponent to post the first major argument, but for now all I post is: An Assault Rifles ban will not reduce killings.

Good luck to my opponent and may the better argument prevail.
G131994

Con

I look forward to the debate and good luck to you.

Common sense dictates by the law of probability that the more deadly weapons there are out on the streets, the more chance there is of them being used to kill or murder someone.

The argument is not a ban will prevent all killing but will in fact reduce killing both intentional and unintentional deaths. A weapon with the deadly power of a assault rifle should NOT be allowed in a public space nor should it be widely available. They are designed to kill and kill in numbers. That"s why they are used in war theatres.

Yes there will still be horrific events of such where deluded people walk around and kill innocent by standards but the simple fact is the a assault rifle has much more killing potential than any other widely available weapon, fact!. Even if horrific events still occur the casualty numbers will be reduced.

Surely to even save the life of one innocent child is worth it.
Debate Round No. 1
debate-u

Pro

1,684/8,583 firearm kills a year are from assault rifles. The other guns are handguns at 6,220, rifles at 323, and shotguns at 356. Also more people are being killed with knives or cutting instruments than assault rifles. I always hear, "Assault rifles kill more people!" yet more people are not being killed by assault rifles. In one of the recent shootings, the shooter had an assault rifle and a pistol, he left the assault rifle in his car and shot people to death with a pistol. It doesn't matter how high the magazines capacity is or if it's an automatic, all it takes is a second to reload. If you were in a room being shot at by some maniac would it matter what kind of a gun it is when he kills you? The sensible answer would be no, a gun is a gun. The assault rifles ban may reduce the selling of assault rifles to law abiding citizens, but you have to count for the black market and the assault rifles that are already owned. Here's another scenario: A law abiding citizen that owns a gun, not an assault rifle because he's following the ban, is faced one night with three home invaders, he must protect his family. Even 30 bullets might not be enough for this man. Well, he tries anyway he shoots and kills one invader, wounds another, and then he and his family are killed. Even at close range bullets don't automatically hit there targets, and even if the man killed two and wounded one, he could've still been killed by the wounded man. I believe that assault rifles have more use than just protecting the country. A ban would be as sensible as taking away cars from sober people in order to reduce drunk driving.
G131994

Con

You stated that ""It doesn't matter how high the magazines capacity is or if it's an automatic, all it takes is a second to reload"" and the directly contradict yourself by saying "" Even 30 bullets might not be enough for this man. Well, he tries anyway he shoots and kills one invader, wounds another"" This clearly proves that size of magazine and speed of shot does have a significant impact when determining how much damage is being done.

Yes there may black market for guns, however the supply will be limited and very heavily monitored by the security services, again the less assault rifles there are out there the less chance them being used in crime.

The shooting last year in Aurora lasted for, at most, a minute and a half. 25 police were there within 2 minutes by which time 12 innocent people had lost their lives most of whom killed by the assault rifle used. Why because the maniac at loose was carrying an assault rifle a weapon designed to kill in vast numbers at incredible speed, if he only had a hand gun he would not of killed as many people fact!
That is what the debate is about not that it would stop all killings but would reduce the number this case alone proves it would have done.

Imagine if you lost your mother or farther in that terrible event would you still support the notion that "" "It doesn't matter how high the magazines capacity is or if it's an automatic, all it takes is a second to reload"" the fact is the less time spent reloading and the faster you can discharge your ammunition the more people are likely to be killed.
Let"s just consider the fact that fully automatic assault rifles, can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute that does a lot more damage than a 9mm pistol.

According to a Department of Justice study, the firearms that the AWB would ban were used in only 2% of gun crimes. Yet your figures show they are responsible for 19.6 % of deaths again proof a ban would reduce killings. Even if crime rate remained about the same.

Why does any normal family need a assault rifle in the first place ?
Debate Round No. 2
debate-u

Pro

You restated what I stated and I will tell you why I stated it and why it doesn't contradict myself. First of all, you failed to mention that the man was killed. Secondly, the criminals would've already planned to stock extra ammo, but the man, on the other hand, wasn't ready for this break in. Also my scenario was assuming the man had tons of target practice. His aiming would have had to been flawless for this outcome. Maybe assault rifles are more dangerous in the hands of criminals than pistols are. That stresses how much we ought to allow the people of the U.S. to have the right to own assault rifles. There are charts proving that the homicide rate went up when the gun control laws came into effect. You should remember this "Nothing is easier than disarming law abiding citizens, and nothing is harder than dis arming criminals." All this ban will do is disarm law abiding citizens so they can get shot dead by criminals. Concerning the loss of a family member, I would most strongly still support that notion, because they could've been killed with a pistol as well as an assault rifle they could've even been killed with a home made bomb. The fact is this ban will not reduce killings if anything it will increase them.

The point is we need the assault rifles to defend ourselves against the assault rifles the criminals have. This concurs with your view on assault rifles being so dangerous. I don't understand how you can't see that criminals that disobey, "thou shalt not kill" will obey, "thou shalt not own assault rifles" The question is this: Why should we let the bad guys get the good stuff? They aren't going to obey the law. They will still have assault rifles and we won't. It is just as plain as that. The government has assault rifles and if they can have them so can we. In the Constitution it clearly states that the government should never be more powerful than the people it protects. The government was made to protect us, and we should also have enough power to protect ourselves in cause the government turns against us or it is not strong enough to protect us.
G131994

Con

At this point I would like to remind you that the debate is NOT about your rights as a citizen of the USA but whether or not a ban on assault rifles would reduce killings. You stated yourself "" Maybe assault rifles are more dangerous in the hands of criminals than pistols are"" thus in your own words the killing power of an assault rifle if greater again contradicting yourself.

Furthermore you also stated ""but the man, on the other hand, wasn't ready for this break in"" .Whatever the situation weather if he had a assault or not he would not of been prepared for the break in therefore the criminals would of always had the upper hand in this situation. If they also had assault rifles which they almost certainly would in the event where there are no restriction on purchase of such weapons the man would never of stood a chance.

You fail to respond to the fact only 2% of gun crimes are committed using assault rifles yet are responsible for 19.6% of deaths (using your own figures)

You state "" Why should we let the bad guys get the good stuff?"" the law would prohibit and thus restrict the use of assault rifles. Yes some may retain illegally them but tighter controls over time will reduce the number of assault rifles out there. Therefore there will be a reduction in nobler of people killed.

"" The government has assault rifles and if they can have them so can we"" the government have grenades , bombs , nuclear weapons, ""if they have them so can we"" NO we cannot the people who use these weapons do so for the good of the country as a whole, in limited controlled circumstances, they have proper training , and can be held accountable through the proper channels.

The fact is this ban will not reduce killings if anything it will increase them. By removing such destructive weapon placing tighter controls on them killing is somehow going to increase even tho today a criminal can work out and buy himself a nice new assault rifle. How on earth buy restricting the purchase how can you possibly increase the number of people killed ?

Again why do you personally need a assault rifle in the first place?.
Debate Round No. 3
debate-u

Pro

I realize that this debate is not about my rights as a citizen, but you asked me, I quote, "Why do you PERSONALLY need a (incorrect grammar should be an) assault rifle in the first place?" So I answered and you tried to call me out on changing the subject when you are the guilty one. Also, in my defense, I said , "MAYBE assault rifles are more dangerous in the hands of criminals than pistols are.

You think that all the bad guys just have a magic change of heart and turn in all their assault rifles? Well, you answered yes. You said, "the law would prohibit the use of assault rifles"
The criminals won't care they break the law already. If anything they'll take this as an advantage, they will kill more people, knowing they have no assault rifles to fear. This ban will not even make the criminals flinch.

Concerning your question, "How on earth buy (Incorrect spelling should be by) restricting the purchase (Run on sentence) how can you possibly increase the number of people killed?", this is the simple answer; Law abiding citizens will not have assault rifles. The criminals will still have them. Therefore the criminals will be able to kill the people easier and they will kill even more people.

I will now refuse to answer your question, "Again why do you personally need a (Incorrect grammar should be an) assault rifle in the first place?", the first reason I will not answer is: I already answered you. The second reason is: You clearly said, "At this point I would like to remind you that the debate is NOT about your rights as a citizen of the USA..." I do not want to make you look stupid, but you just contradicted yourself.

Now back to the REAL subject (You really got us off track), "An Assault Rifles ban will not reduce the killings" As I stated and you concurred (Paragraph 6, Round 3), "The fact is that a ban will not reduce the killings, if anything it will increase them" The ban will definitely not help the situation at all, it will just make it worse. Would you rather wield an assault rifle against a criminal with an assault rifle or a pistol against a criminal with an assault rifle? I hope you have enough common sense to see that an assault rifles ban will, most certainly, not reduce the killings. This has been proven in the past and is not any different now.

Thank you, for this great debate.

Good luck, and may the better argument prevail.
G131994

Con

We are NOT debating how easy it will be to implement and enforce a ban. Instead simply that a properly implemented and enforced ban would reduce the number of people killed. A properly enforced and implemented ban would reduce significantly the number of assault rifles out there available to civilians and criminals alike.

You say if a criminal somehow obtains an assault rifle, despite the ban making this a lot harder if not impossible, then you yourself need one. In fact if it is the middle of the night and you have no prior warning, you will not be able to arm yourself fast enough, they will come charging in with an assault rifle, and with one pull on the trigger you are dead. Whether you have an assault rifle or not the result is still the same. Why not make it harder for the criminals to obtain the assault rifle in the first place.

Yet again you refuse to respond to the fact only 2% of gun crimes are committed using assault rifles yet are responsible for 19.6% of deaths (using your own figures) despite prompting in 2nd and 3rd rounds.

You also fail to justify your statement "" The government has assault rifles and if they can have them so can we"" and ignore my response, ""the government have grenades, bombs, nuclear weapons, ""if they have them so can we"" NO we cannot the people who use these weapons do so for the good of the country as a whole, in limited controlled circumstances, they have proper training, and can be held accountable through the proper channels."" Confirming the how unjustifiable and absurd the statement you made is.

You also say ""as I stated and you concurred (Paragraph 6, Round 3), "The fact is that a ban will not reduce the killings, if anything it will increase them""" please read full paragraph as you have clearly taken my point out of context
Criminals will be a lot less dangerous without assault rifles .You also provide no counter to the point many lives could have been saved at the Aurora shootings last year if the perpetrator did possess an assault rifle. As I highlighted in (Paragraph 3 Round 2).

Your argument relies almost solely on the poor enforcement of the ban allowing only criminals to obtain assault rifles, but you have provided no evidence and no sources to prove or even suggest a ban would be ineffective. You also concede "" assault rifles are more dangerous in the hands of criminals than pistols are"" I couldn't agree more and therefore a ban of assault rifles would in fact reduce killings.

New York , Massachusetts, New Jersey, Cook County, and California have enacted similar bans. With a reduction in numbers killed in gun related incidents showing without doubt the fewer deadly weapons out there, the fewer people will lose their lives to such evil weapons designed to take the most precious thing of all. Surely a ban that helps protect our children now and in the future is worth it.

Our right to life is the most precious right we have. As suggested thought the debate. A ban will help maintain this right for every women, man and child.

Thank you, for this great debate.

Good luck to you
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by G131994 3 years ago
G131994
I am not saying it is not dangerous jut there is evidence to suggest killing because of gun crime went down.
Posted by timothy.dorn 3 years ago
timothy.dorn
That fact about Cook County is a lie. Cook County is Chicago Illinois, Chicago is damn near one of the most dangerous places you could be.
Posted by SeantheScot 3 years ago
SeantheScot
A ban on assault rifles would not reduce killings massively only strict gun controls on al firearms sale will significantly reduce gun related deaths.

A ban on assault rifles is a good start but nowhere near good enough.
Posted by Nascar 3 years ago
Nascar
A 9mm hand guns bullets are bigger than the AR-15. Do not ban guns I'm only for backround check
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
In the 1920's, a man killed more people in schools than in Sandy Hook with nothing put a few pistols, a rifle, and a bomb.
Posted by debate-u 3 years ago
debate-u
After this debate I'll move on to the wider subject, "Should the government restrict the right to bear arms?" I will be on the negative side. If anyone would like to challenge me please say so.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by frappe 3 years ago
frappe
debate-uG131994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate is if an assault rifle ban would not reduce killings, not whether or not it is a commendable policy. Personally I do not support such a ban, but it must be conceded that such a ban would most likely result in atleat one less killing, and therefore con is correct.
Vote Placed by Cjnair5900 3 years ago
Cjnair5900
debate-uG131994Tied
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: I'm for the pro guy I'm a pro constitutionalist because if u take any kind of gun away despite if its very deadly or not its not gonna stop a criminal from committing crimes get the criminals off the streets not the guns guns protect.