The Instigator
TheSquadBoss
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
LevezVosSkinnyFists
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Automatic weapons should be legalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
TheSquadBoss
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,781 times Debate No: 13707
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

TheSquadBoss

Pro

Resolved: Automatic Weapons should be legalized. I am a firm beliver that they should and will be taking the Pro side.

First lets look at why they are currently illegal. Automatic weapons are illegal becuase of the fear that criminals will get a hold of them and use them for criminal causes. I cocncur that this is a lagitamite fear however, what has it done? Criminals still have and use these weapons and the only thing keeping them illegal has done is prevented good citizens from ownig them for self deffense purposes.

I thank you for reading and urge a Pro ballot!
LevezVosSkinnyFists

Con

When it comes to illegality, the main question that should be considered is: does this have the potential to harm anyone OTHER than the individual using it. In other words, is this a victim-less crime? When it comes to matters such as marijuana or prostitution (tangents I'd prefer not to get into, I'm merely using them to illustrate a point) there is a potential for harm, but only to the people using marijuana or practicing prostitution. The right to inflict harm upon yourself is one that I will vouch for, as it is a personal choice.

Weapons, on the other hand, have the potential for harm beyond just the people using them. In fact, they are designed specifically to harm anyone but the person using them. This now puts individuals with no willing association with the subject in question in danger. It's true that people kill people but, frankly, (to refute this old clich´┐Ż) they use guns to do it. This is why we should take all steps possible to keep guns out of everyone's hands; criminals and civilians alike (though shooting someone has the potential to make you a criminal, doesn't it?).

It is absolutely ridiculous that you would need an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Even within the current context of handguns being legal, surely that's enough? In the kind of situation where one might need to use a weapon (and such situations are few and isolated), would you not want to minimize the amount of gunfire?
Debate Round No. 1
TheSquadBoss

Pro

I thank my opponent for excepting this debate.

If your arguement is that guns are desighned to hurt every one but the user and we should there fore ban them you are also arguing to be just about every other weapon including all other types of guns.

You also said we have hand guns isn't that enough. I'll let you and the commenters pick: A man is breaking into your house. He has an automatic weapon. What would you preffer to confront him with. A handgun or an equally powered weapon.
We must remeber, guns don't commit crimes. Bad people commit crimes and guns are only a medium used to do so. If we where going to ban guns/keep certain ones illegal to prevent crime, then we should also ban cars, knifes, baseball bats, heavy objects, and rocks becuase these things can also be used to kill.

I strongly urge all parties voting to vote for the Pro side of this debate.
LevezVosSkinnyFists

Con

I would argue for the illegality of all weapons because the only purpose they serve is to kill and harm. As for the other objects you mentioned - "cars, knifes, baseball bats, heavy objects, and rocks" - these objects all have a purpose for which they were created that does not involve harming others. If we were to make them illegal, it would cause much inconvenience and difficulty in people's lives whereas the illegality of guns actually makes people safer.

Your other point is really nothing more than paranoid hyperbole. I cannot see an open fire fight with automatic weapons happening in your home any time soon. Even if you do have an intruder in your home, most buglers can be scared off by your very presence or a cheap security alarm (if this is really the sort of thing that confuses you).
Debate Round No. 2
TheSquadBoss

Pro

I thank my opponent for his insightful response.

My opponent's first statment was that if we were to ban cars, baseball bats, knifes, and rocks it would be an inconvienice while banning guns would be fine because they were desighned soley to harm people. However my opponent is wrong. Guns are also used in hunting and recreation. There are still places in America where people really greatly on hunting in order to eat. I argue that banning guns is quite an inconviniece. What are security guards and police officers supposed to use if guns are illegal? But we have gotten off topic with this "Whether or not guns should be made illegal" debate. The resolution is wether automatic weapons should be legalized or not.

If criminals have and use automatic weapons "good" citizens should be able to have them for what ever reason. Even if we did allow "good" citizens to have them the crime rate wouldn't go up becuase "good" citizens" wouldn't use them to commit crimes. This brings me to my opponent's second statement: "I don't think I will be robbed anytime soon." It's impossible to predict future events however it is still possible and even if it does not happen to you specifically it could happen to soemone else and the question would present itself: An armed man eneters your house. Which would you preffer to confront him with? A can of pepper spray or an equally powered weapon, an automatic weapon?
LevezVosSkinnyFists

Con

First off, I'd like to say that you are correct about the discussion getting off topic and I will be sure to stick to the resolution of automatic weapons being legal rather than all weapons.

Your main argument relies on the supposed need to protect yourself against armed criminals. These criminals are getting weapons somehow, most likely buying them on the black market. This means that someone who has legally purchased a gun has had it stolen or sold it to the black market. If automatic weapons are legalized, would it not stand to reason that the theft of automatic weapons would become much more common, and thus, that they would be more available to criminals? Most burglars are not looking for confrontation and prefer not to attract attention. Not to mention that a gun in your home is just one more item that can be stolen (once again contributing to the black market).

The propagation of weapons (especially automatic weapons) is not going to make anyone safer. The best way to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals is through strong gun control.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSquadBoss

Pro

I thank my opponent for his quick response.

My opponent said that by legalizing automatic weapons they would become more availbale to criminals. I concur to an extent this may be true however they will also allow citizens to have more protection. My opponent suggests that keeping them illegal will keep them in low numbers but is this really ture? Automatic weapons are currently illegal and I woudn't call them rare. Automatic weapons are in high number amoungst criminals.

Earlier my opponent said:"I don't see my self getting robbed very soon." #1 there is no way to predict future events so all though you may not "sense" a robbery in the future dosen't mean it can't happen and #2 it may not happen to you but might happen to someone else. According to officials in San Fransico in Richmond alone someone is shot ever 2 or 3 days factor in thge rest of America and multiple people are being shot daily, the chances of being assaulted aren't as irrational as you think. They may not be typical in our lives but still the same question comes to mind (I repeat again): Your house is being robbed. The man has an automatic weapon what do you want to have? A small pistol or a comprable weapon. In addition my opponent didn't respond to my statement about the in convinience of banning guns in the hunting a recreation industry.

I thank my opponent for a good debate.

When you go to vote after eading this just remeber the hypothetical i used earlier and think which one you would want in that situation. A can of pepper spray or a comperable weapon.

I thank you all and urge a PRO ballot.
LevezVosSkinnyFists

Con

I feel like I have effectively proved that the legalization of automatic weapons would make them more available for criminals (that point was just conceded), so I will address your other arguments here.

You said that "in San Francisco in Richmond alone someone is shot ever[y] 2 or 3 days factor in the rest of America and multiple people are being shot daily". These people are being shot with guns: the very thing you are arguing to make more accessible. This seems like a basic flaw in logic: "too many people are being shot, so let's make guns more available". By arming citizens you are treating a symptom; not curing the problem. The solution here should focus more on keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and stopping violent crime at the roots than on arming citizens with automatic weapons. They are one more thing to be stolen in the case of a burglary and we cannot afford to have them become more accessible.

I hope that we can progress towards a gun-free society one day and in the spirit of peace, I ask for a con vote on this debate. I thank my opponent for the lively discussion and look forward to future dialog.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheSquadBoss 3 years ago
TheSquadBoss
its fine but people tend to get annoyed when you vote for yourself, I will just even it out.
Posted by LevezVosSkinnyFists 3 years ago
LevezVosSkinnyFists
Half because I wanted to see if you COULD vote for yourself, and half because I want to win the debate?
You're more than welcome to even that out, I figured you would when I did that.... Sorry if I committed some sort of debate.org faux pas, I wasn't aware.
Posted by TheSquadBoss 3 years ago
TheSquadBoss
LevezVosSkinnyFistswhy would you #1 vote for yourself and then #2 give me just 1 point?
Posted by TheSquadBoss 3 years ago
TheSquadBoss
How is that so? When citizens are better armed it is proven to lower crime. Criminals hat confrontation and dislike an armed public. In addition the national academy of sciences was not able to link the banning of guns to a single decrease in crime. Remeber we aren't forcing people to buy automatic weapons we are just allowing people to own them even if they want. People may never evenm have to use them in self deffense but its their decission.
Posted by dinokiller 3 years ago
dinokiller
I agree completely with Con as allowing automatic weapons is the same as giving criminals the chance to commit more serious crimes like bank robbery.
Posted by TheSquadBoss 3 years ago
TheSquadBoss
during that particulair arguement i didn't reference automatic weapons I refferenced weapons in general read further and I say: "We have gotten off topic lets get back to the res." At that momment I was speaking about guns in general.

In addition automatic weapons can be used to hunt but are rarely used for 2 reasons: #1 there illegal and few people are licensed to own them #2 the rapid income of bullets often damages the meat and skin of the animal.
Posted by dinokiller 3 years ago
dinokiller
Lol TheSquadBoss
You use an automatic weapon to go hunting?
Ive never seen someone go hunting with a m4 or an Ak-74
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Elmakai 3 years ago
Elmakai
TheSquadBossLevezVosSkinnyFistsTied
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 
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 3 years ago
Aaronroy
TheSquadBossLevezVosSkinnyFistsTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheSquadBoss 3 years ago
TheSquadBoss
TheSquadBossLevezVosSkinnyFistsTied
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 
Vote Placed by LevezVosSkinnyFists 3 years ago
LevezVosSkinnyFists
TheSquadBossLevezVosSkinnyFistsTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Deku 3 years ago
Deku
TheSquadBossLevezVosSkinnyFistsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50