Assault Weapons Bans will not solve gun crime in the United States of America
Debate Rounds (4)
BoP lies with both arguers; Con must prove that an assault weapons ban is both efficient and effective in stopping gun violence. Pro must insist with reasonable cause that an assault weapons ban is not effective nor efficient.
First round is for acceptance
Second round is for arguments and supporting details
Third round is for rebuttals
Fourth round is for closing comments.
8,000 Character Max
Solve- to find a solution, explanation, or answer for
[Location found: http://www.merriam-webster.com...]
Gun crime- the overall amount of violence and deaths in the United States of America by way of firearms, limited to handguns, shotguns, and assault weapons.
Assault Weapons Ban- the complete illegalization of all assault weapons that hold more than 20 rounds and have the cosmetic features of an assault rifle, with the ability to fire in fully automatic or burst fire methods.
To institute a ban on assault weapons would only prohibit the people of America from protecting themselves because only law abiding citizens would obey the ban. In America, over 60% of violent crimes and homicides are performed by firearms(2) . Less than four percent of all murders by firearms, however, are committed by what the government considers as "assault weapons" and .8% of them were performed with a military caliber bullet. (3) Banning assault weapons at that rate of frequency would be contrary to the burden of proof because it would not be effective in stopping gun violence in America. The assertion that an Assault Weapons ban in this day and age will do anything to prevent gun violence is absurd because if such a small amount of crime is currently being perpetrated at the time, the bans effectiveness in stopping the overwhelming 60% statistic would be entirely negligible and could not possibly be taken in consideration as a way to solve gun violence in this country.
You also must take into account that even by the stroke of a near miracle that some criminals adhere to the ban and participate in some kind of government buyback of the weapons, you must still perceive the possibility of a black market. In the 1920s when the Prohibition movement started, alcohol of almost any kind was absolutely forbidden by the United States government. This caused a drastic increase in illegal alcohol shipping(4). A similar event could occur in America if the government were to forbid a specific species of weaponry. Black market availability would increase the amount of illegal weapons being produced and distributed to many criminals. When you consider that these criminals could have powerful, long range assault weapons and the people could be left nearly defenseless, it only puts the people of the United States of America in danger when such a ban is put in place. This would insinuate that an Assault Weapons Ban would be not only ineffective to stopping gun violence, but it could be a martyr to increased gun violence and detrimental to the citizens of the United States who actually OBEYED the ban.
danielawesome12 forfeited this round.
danielawesome12 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LotusNG 3 years 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Not a vb. Con forfeited, so all but S&G goes to pro.
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.