Ban on semi automatic rifles.
Debate Rounds (3)
I disagree that a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles would be ineffective in preventing deaths which occur at the hands of these weapons. I would also like to add that it seems this debate will have to rely mostly upon presumption, contradicting statistics, and personal experience. We can't really gauge the effectiveness or non of something we haven't done yet (and gun control can't be likened to prohibition, because most people can't build a gun in their home. Not sure if you were gonna go there. :-)
My first argument is there are not a lot of murders committed with this particular type of weapon. According to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov...) there were a total of 322 deaths from rifles of all types (bolt action and semi automatic). This is the least used firearm type for murder.
My second argument is that the causes of murder will not change and therefore the weapon of choice does not matter. Again going off the table I posted above from the FBI, there were a total of 12,765 murders in 2012 (only 2.5% were killed by the use of a rifle). Of those murders 4,378 were result of gang killings, prison killings, arguments, babysitters killing children, and drugs and alcohol. Banning a weapon probably will not stop these especially the one that are committed because some on lost their temper.
My third argument is that the United States did have an "assault" weapons ban in the 1990"s that expired in 2000. According to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov...) there was a decrease in crimes once the ban was lifted.
The numbers are in per 100,000 people
In 1995 violent crimes were at 684.5
In 2012 violent crimes were at 386.9
There was a decrees of 307.6 occurrences.
In 1995 murder was 9.5
In 2012 murder was 4.7
there were 4.8 less murders
In 1995 rape was at 37.1
In 2012 rape was 26.9
In 1995 robbery was 220.9
In 2012 robbery was 12.9
In 1995 Assaults were at 418.3
In 2012 it was 242.3
In 1995 Burglary was 987.0
in 2012 Burglary was 670.2
Your major point seems to be that not a lot of crimes are committed with these weapons, based on fbi statistics-- a reliable source, but not necessarily entirely accurate. There are many murders never solved, or bodies never found. We also don't know how many unreported crimes are committed with these weapons, (particularly amongst or by the poorer communities).
This also writes off the 322 deaths that did occur, and the potential for future, increased violence as more people decide to buy assault rifles "before it's too late". 322 Deaths might seem low compared to the 150 million people in America, but if you ask me even one life is worth saving if we have the power. Whether it is currently 3 or 3000 people a year dying from assault rifles, there are 3 undisputable facts we must consider:
1. Semi-automatic rifles are assault weapons, not personal defense weapons, and can be easily modified into fully-automatic weapons. Even in semi-auto, they greatly increase the accuracy and speed with which a potential domestic terrorist or criminal is able to kill.
2. There is no reason to own these weapons if you are not military or law enforcement, other than sheer joy of shooting which is not a good enough reason to ignore gun violence that occurs when guns get stolen or bought through private sales.
"Slightly more than 190,000 firearms were reported lost or stolen across the country last year, according to a new report by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives." --Doesn't say exactly how many were assault rifles, but it doesn't really matter because the overarching point is that there are irresponsible, psychotic, or otherwise dangerous gun owners out there who give us the need for these laws.
"My second argument is that the causes of murder will not change and therefore the weapon of choice does not matter."
This is a philosophical debate, as far as this point goes. Via logical deduction:
1. Humanity is inherently self-destructive of themselves, their communities, and their habitats.
2. Whenever we equip men with the means to do more evil or evil more easily, at least some of them are going to take advantage.
3. If we don't regulate the sale and flow of assault weapons, they will make it into the hands of evil people much more easily.
.:/ If we do not regulate the sale and flow of firearms, more evil people will have better weapons
with which to cause more destruction in our communities.
"My third argument is that the United States did have an "assault" weapons ban in the 1990"s that expired in 2000. According to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov......) there was a decrease in crimes once the ban was lifted."
"Back in 1994, Congress passed a federal assault-weapons ban that lasted 10 years. Experts who have studied the law tend to agree that it was rife with loopholes and generally ineffective at curbing gun violence " though it might well have reduced mass shootings."
The law they want to pass now is better (except the 10 round max is a bit unreasonable). However, we can't accurately predict that such regulations would or would not directly decrease violence. We do know, per point 1, that it decreases the potential for mass violence.
I like to shoot guns, I really do. I own a Bersa for home protection, and hope to own a desert eagle when I have the money. I love shooting at the range, and I have a concealed carry permit. I think it would be awesome to own an assault rifle for both shooting and possible defense in times of war (which is entirely feasible, but I suspect if we were invaded and our military defeated, we don't stand much of a chance either way).
"Kid shoots self with parent's gun--About 42,300,000 results "
"Kid shoots friend with parent's gun-About 40,600,000 results"
"Stolen assault rifles-About 1,880,000 results"
I would love to own an AK-47, but in light of reality, am willing to give up such a right in order to make America a safer place for my son to grow up in.
JMCika forfeited this round.
Might wanna turn on email reminders bro!
So ya, assault rifles --we don't want crazy people and mean people having them. This means we must stop allowing them to be sold liberally in the streets (funny coming from a liberal, yes?). We have to actually put laws on the books, so when people or agencies "lose" weapons they can be held responsible for violating laws, rather than some simple charge like negligence. Our police should be working to keep unregistered guns and assault rifles out of the hands of criminals, instead of harassing teens for drug use (in fact, legalize drugs and you'll get rid of half of the guns).
I'm on tangent now, but my opponent forfeited, so really I am just talking to myself. Or am I typing to myself? Am I supposed to answer that?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 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:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con missing half the rounds...
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.