The Instigator
RavenDebater
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
smartismyname
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Automatic 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...
RavenDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 539 times Debate No: 69596
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

RavenDebater

Con

This will be a debate on whether or not civilians should be able to possess and use automatic weapons. I will be taking the side of con (Arguing for the civilian possession of these arms).
Round One: Acceptance
Round Two: Constructives
Round Three: Constructives and Rebuttles
Round Four: Rebuttles (no new arguments)
Automatic weapon is defined as so: any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire at the options of the user.
http://www.slate.com...
smartismyname

Pro

they should not be banned because in war how will people end the fight? with pistols
Debate Round No. 1
RavenDebater

Con

I believe my opponent is a little confused. I have taken the side of Con and am therefore arguing that automatic weapons should not be banned. Pro is arguing that they should be. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.
Nevertheless I have an argument to make
Reasons why automatic weapons should no be banned
1. Banning would be insufficient to quell the problems associated with automatic weapons.
In 1994 a piece of legislation was passed called the Assault Weapons Ban. Supporters argued that this would decrease gun crimes. Roth and Koper (some of the original writers of the bill were quoted to have said "We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim." What that means is that when an actual ban was placed on automatic weapons it did not curb gun violence, contrary to what most ban advocates claim.
2. A ban would be insufficient to quell mass shootings
One of the biggest problems that people have with automatic weapons is that they are the guns most often used for mass shootings. However banning them would have little affect on these. Again referencing the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 here. In the time that the ban was in affect 14 mass shootings happened, including Columbine. Opponents may argue that we have seen an increase in deaths by automatic weapons but statistics show that mass shooting fluctuate from year to year, and that no trend is clear.
3. A ban would negatively affect the economy.
Gun manufacturing is a 6 billion dollar industry and employs over 200,000 people. Automatic weapons make up %14 of all weapons sales so a ban on them would cost the industry 420 million dollars a year. Considering we're just coming out of economic downturn this kind of loss would be unacceptable
4. A ban would completely nullify the second amendment.
As we all know the second amendment guarantees our right to own and use a firearm. But a ban on automatic weapons would completely invalidate the point of it being there in the first place. True a ban on automatic weapon would not infringe on our ability to own a firearm, but you must think of what the founding fathers had in mind when they originally wrote that. When the Bill of Rights was writing America had just managed to successfully revolt against Great Britain. What do you thin seems more likely. Them writing the amendment so a few people can go hunting every once in a while or guaranteeing the means to revolt once more if an oppressive regime ever came into power again. Back then the only weapon available was the musket. Military and Civilian arms didn't vary all that much and the drafters thought it was a safe assumption to think that it would remain that way. However, we do not live in that time anymore. If an oppressive regime comes to power handguns are not going to stop it. Wars these days are fought with machine guns, not hunting rifles. if we ban automatic weapons we essentially cripple our ability to fight back
Sources:
http://mic.com...
http://www.foxnews.com...
http://business.time.com...
http://www.slate.com...
smartismyname

Pro

smartismyname forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
RavenDebater

Con

I extend all my points
smartismyname

Pro

smartismyname forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RavenDebater

Con

I extend all my points. Con wins by default
smartismyname

Pro

smartismyname forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
RavenDebatersmartismynameTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
RavenDebatersmartismynameTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff