The Instigator
drosenbloom18
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
a_mysterious_stranger
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Assault weapons should be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
a_mysterious_stranger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,048 times Debate No: 61820
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

drosenbloom18

Pro

Before I begin, I would like to clarify that the opponent may not just rely on the right to bear arms, but must explain why the should have that right. I will now proceed to my argument.

Contention 1: America no longer has the need to protect itself from a tyrannical government, one of the original purposes of the second amendments.

Contention 2: There is no practical use for assault weapons.

Contention 3: Gun Control effectively reduces the amount of gun violence.
a_mysterious_stranger

Con

I'll debate, because I'm bored.

Gun Control Reduces Crime
Simply, a false statement. Gun control actually increases crime rate. With gun control in place, smuggling will be a lot more common. Also according to this article (Source; http://theweek.com...) Gun control isn't a solution. The article is a year old, but it was published on January 31st, and at that time, 44 people were killed in Chicago that year. States with the carry conceal permit holder, had less crime rates (Source; http://www.theblaze.com...). It has so far been proven, that gun control isn't a great idea for reducing crime rate. Criminals see unarmed civilians as an opportunity. However, if a criminal knows that a house has an armed civilian, he will most likely stay away from that house.

Assault weapons
This article (Source; http://www.americanthinker.com...) says that "The two strongest reasons for civilians to own assault weapons are self-defense and defense against tyranny". Tyranny is referring to the government.

An assault rifle is a great thing to have to protect yourself from criminals, and the government. The 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia..." We the people fought against tyranical Britain, many years ago. The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed.

sources;
http://theweek.com...

http://www.theblaze.com...

http://www.americanthinker.com...
Debate Round No. 1
drosenbloom18

Pro

I would first like to reiterate that this argument only applies to assault weapons. Assault weapons being: "a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military" - Merriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com.... I apologize for not making this clearer.

The examples you provided to prove gun control is ineffective are unreliable, because the gun laws in those examples only applied to a particular area, and were not nationwide. In Chicago, one of your examples, it would be ridiculously easy to get a gun from any neighboring city.

Many countries have passed assault weapon bans on a national level with successful results. In Australia, for example, they have seen gun-related violence decrease dramatically after implementing gun control in 1996. In the eighteen years before passing gun control, there were thirteen mass shootings. In the years since, there have been zero mass shootings. From 1996 to 2011, the number of gun related deaths in Australia has gone down 63%, the number of gun related homicides down 58%, and the number of gun suicides down 65%. This proves that gun control will effectively reduce gun violence.

Earlier you stated: "An assault rifle is a great thing to have to protect yourself from criminals, and the government. The 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia..." We the people fought against tyrannical Britain, many years ago. The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed.". While it may be true we fought against a tyranny almost two and half centuries ago, this is no longer a threat. We have the most powerful military in the world, and there are no countries that pose a tyrannical threat. However, if we were somehow ever to face tyrannical threat, it is highly unlikely that ordinary citizens could defend themselves better that our own military.
You also brought up self defense to support your argument. While it is obviously true a criminal is less likely to attack someone with a gun, there is no practical reason to use an assault weapon for self defense. Assault weapons are used in war to kill mass amounts of people, so I see no reason why one would use this for self-defense.

http://www.gunpolicy.org...
a_mysterious_stranger

Con

My examples were effective, and reliable. I will not tolerate any insults.

US citizen defense
As Isoroku Yamamoto, supposedly said. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." What if the US was being invaded by a foreign country? Many citizens would grab their guns and defend themselves from the enemy. And our government isn't 100% trustworty, they could do something that provokes the citizens. Any kind of weapon, is needed to protect civilian lives.

The facts
In the US assault weapons have been used in a small amount of gun related crime. In 1994-2004 congress concluded that "the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” Assault weapons, were only used in 1%-2% of violent crimes. That means 99%-98% of the time, assault weapons were not used.
To add more, the ban on assault rifles in the US have not reduced crime. After the ban in California, 1989, California's murder rate, increased every year, for five years, 26% overall. And in 2000, they banned even more guns...The murder rate then increased 12% higher than the national rate. The ATF even said it can "In no way vouch for the validity of Brady Campaign’s claim that the federal “assault weapon” law reduced crime.". The CDC, National Academy of Sciences, and the Library of Congress have found no evidence that 'gun control' reduces crime. The supreme court stated that "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”

Mass Shootings
If somehow, assault weapons are banned, mass shootings can still happen. 1999, Columbine shooting. An assault weapon ban was taking place and 13 other mass shootings still happened. There is more proof, that gun control isn't as effective. 14 mass shootings, still happened, while an assault weapon ban was in order. Criminals can still smuggle in weapons, even with the new technology we have today. Criminals can sneak any kind of gun into a place, and shoot everyone there. Wether they bought it or not. Gun control will just prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Criminals do not obey the law, do you REALLY think that the prohibition act in 1920 went well?


Debate Round No. 2
drosenbloom18

Pro

"My examples were effective, and reliable. I will not tolerate any insults."

I would first like to say that I did not intend to insult you by attacking examples. However, unless you are able to disprove my attack on the reliability on your examples, they will be viewed as unreliable for the remainder of the debate, along with any other examples you provided that do not have nationwide gun laws.

"What if the US was being invaded by a foreign country? Many citizens would grab their guns and defend themselves from the enemy. And our government isn't 100% trustworty, they could do something that provokes the citizens. Any kind of weapon, is needed to protect civilian lives."

Your tyranny/invasion argument is based purely on speculation and not backed up by any factual evidence. You provided no evidence that we are likely to have a foreign invasion which we would be able to defend better than our own military, which by the way is the strongest in the world. You also have no evidence that our Government has any intent to harm its own citizens.
a_mysterious_stranger

Con

Comments
You have no say if my arguments are reliable or not. That's up to the voters, they decide who's argument was better. And yes, I know that my argument of tyranny did not have any evidence. But you have no evidence, that the government won't attack the citizens. MKUltra was a U.S. Government brainwashing program, who's to say that won't happen again? Do you have evidence? I doubt it. Also, your argument that round wasn't what I expected, and seemed pointless in my point of view. So, I guess I'll use this round to use other kinds of sources. By the way, a terrorist attack could happen at any moment, without warning... http://www.commdiginews.com... There's your proof about foreign threats.

UK Gun Control
In the UK, gun control has failed, just as it has in the US. After the Dunblane Massacre in the UK, 1996, there have been stricter gun control laws. But, they have proven to be a disaster. Now, there have been estimated to be about 3 million guns in the UK. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com... Says "A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007. It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.". So it's not just America, the UK still has gun control problems as well. I don't have much else to say, because your last argument was something I didn't expect. So, I just put this in because it helps support my argument. I hope you have a better argument next round.

sources;

http://theweek.com...

http://www.theblaze.com...

http://www.americanthinker.com...

http://www.nraila.org...

http://mic.com...

http://www.rense.com...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...









Debate Round No. 3
drosenbloom18

Pro

Thank You for finding better examples.

Government:
My evidence that the government won't attack its own citizens is the lack of evidence that it will. If our government is so tyrannical and has the intent to attack its own citizens, what's taking so long? Do you honestly think that your assault rifle is keeping the government from taking over? They have a virtually endless supply of military resources including, nukes, missiles, aircrafts, that your guns wouldn't be able to anything about in the crazy scenario you described.
I never denied that there were any foreign threats, I only denied that we would find ourselves fighting these foreign threats, rather than our own military. I will also add that an ISIS attack would most likely mean something like a bombing, meaning that there wouldn't be much we could do to defend ourselves, other than preventing them from getting here in the first place.

Gun Control in other countries:

UK: Actually, gun control has not failed. From 1996-2011 The total number of annual gun deaths went from 247 to 146 (40% decline), and the total number of gun homicides went from 84 to 38 (55% decline). This proves that there has been less gun violence as a result of gun control.

Japan: Japan has one of the strictest and most effective gun policies in the world. Despite having a population of almost 130 million, almost no gun violence. In 2006 there were only two gun homicides.

Australia: Gun-related violence decreased dramatically after implementing gun control in 1996. In the eighteen years before passing gun control, there were thirteen mass shootings. In the years since, there have been zero mass shootings. From 1996 to 2011, the number of gun related deaths in Australia has gone down 63%, the number of gun related homicides down 58%, and the number of gun suicides down 65%.

http://www.gunpolicy.org...
http://ivn.us...
a_mysterious_stranger

Con

Comments
Odd, our sources seem to contradict. You say the UK has a decline in weapons, while I say they didn't. Let's not blame each other about this, but it's just something I pointed out. Terrorism can happen in any form, bombing, or invading. They could head to NY and shoot down people on the streets, that would still be an act of terrorism, even if no bombs were detonated. Yes, I know that the military has a never ending arsenal of weapons, but if there's a mass revolt, they won't wipe out a majority of the population. And your lack of sources, does not help you much in the argument.

Back to the UK
I don't want to go back and forth about this, but the http://www.examiner.com... says "Yet none of these laws prevented today's mass killing spree. indeed, this is not the first time that I’ve written about the failure of British gun control laws to disarm criminals. To name a few cases, I’ve written about a pregnant British woman being raped by an armed home invader, and a British postal worker who was fatally shot by an armed robber. I’ve mentioned how a British bicycle rider was gunned down, and how teenagers are often shot in London these days. I’ve discussed how a former boxing champion and father of 2 young children was fatally shot in a smoke-free nightclub after politely asking a violent individual to stop smoking indoors. Moving beyond those anecdotal evidence, crime statistics show a 40% increase in handgun related crime in the first two years after the British banned handguns. In sum, British gun control has failed to disarm the criminals, who get their guns on the black market - or simply manufacture their own illegal guns." The last part, the black market, and illegal manufacturing.

Other ways of having guns
About 253,000 U.S. guns, are smuggled, illegally, south of the border each year. That's a lot of guns, that clearly would still be smuggled, if gun control was set in motion. 93% of guns, have been obtained on the black market, gun control can't stop that. If criminals want a gun, they will do anything they can, to get their hands on one.

I will end this argument, with a quote, by Niccolo Machiavelli. "When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred."

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by a_mysterious_stranger 3 years ago
a_mysterious_stranger
Vote
Posted by drosenbloom18 3 years ago
drosenbloom18
cheyennebodie, so you're saying Obama is worse than Hitler?
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
And what makes you think that the military would side with the tyrants. Especially an all voluntary military.All I am saying is those gun give government real pause . We have a tyrant in the white house now. He does all he can to provoke the people. Just waiting for the chance to martial law. The only difference I can see between him and hitler, hitler was a driven man. Obama is basically lazy.
Posted by drosenbloom18 3 years ago
drosenbloom18
You think the government is afraid of ordinary citizens with guns? They have nukes! Planes! Missiles! What makes you think were headed in a tyrannical direction?
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
And pro. If a criminal has a gun with a 15 round cartridge. I would want one with a 16 round cartridge.And if his gun shoots 10 rounds a second. I would want one that shoots I would want one that shoots 12 rounds a second.

There was a lady stopped on the freeway in California and the cop saw on her liscience she was a concealed weapon person, He asked her if she was carrying now. She said, I have a 357 in the glove compartment, a 45 in the console, and a 9 millimeter in my purse. He said. " my god lady, what are you afraid of".She said, " absolutely nothing."
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
I guess pro would have wanted that principal at sandyhook to walk up and put a flower in the gun barrel of that crazy.The only reason the hippies of the 60's got away with it because those troops were the good guys with guns.
Posted by funnycn 3 years ago
funnycn
Also Pro, you'd WANT a gun if someone had your child held at gun point.
Posted by funnycn 3 years ago
funnycn
Hey guys guess what. PRO says the government isn't a threat. HAHAHAHA!

He also says gun control reduces crime! HAHAHAHA!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by QTAY21 3 years ago
QTAY21
drosenbloom18a_mysterious_strangerTied
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 main point of having a firearm is to defend yourself. Banning either handguns or assault rifles will have similar issues. Criminals can find ways to smuggle these firearms, while law-abiding citizens will not be armed because of gun control. Although assault rifles were mainly intended for tyrannical governments, they can still be used to defend themselves from criminals. It's pretty hard for Pro to prove that our government is not corrupt/tyrannical, seeing as most people already consider them too be, with all of their shady practices lately. Who knows what their real agenda is. The government itself is trying to ban what the citizens use to defend themselves from governments, taking away not only assault rifles, but handguns as well. I don't believe the argument of trusting the government is good enough to ban assault rifles. Both have provided good sources, so there is no point arguing which statistics matter.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
drosenbloom18a_mysterious_strangerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con showed that people should have assault weapons because terrorists rarely ever use them, and that the weapons can protect against assaults, and that gun-ban isn't helpful