The Instigator
mothmanfan
Con (against)
Tied
14 Points
The Contender
drhead
Pro (for)
Tied
14 Points

Militaristic style weapons ban

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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 33170
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

mothmanfan

Con

If accepted, we will be debating weather or not there should be a ban on guns like an AR-15, AK-47, and other such weapons. 4000 character limit, and five rounds. This intro, will not contain an argument, if it is accepted, i will make my first argument as a rebuttal. I am very passionate about this topic, and i hope that someone will accept who feels passionately about the contrary and will make for a tough opponent
drhead

Pro

I accept. I await your arguments (assuming the first round is acceptance).
Debate Round No. 1
mothmanfan

Con

mothmanfan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
mothmanfan

Con

I apologize for the lack of argument last round, I have been busy finishing up school. First of all, the AR-15's only difference from a Ruger Mini-14 hunting rifle is simple aesthetics. Getting rid of a gun for its aesthetics does not help anything. the power of a gun, is in the cartridge. The rifle determines little about the velocity and force of the resulting bullet. the power comes from the powder that is inside the cartridge. I would like to clarify some terms before the debate gets too far, assault weapon, is ANY semi-automatic firearm, handguns, rifles, or shotguns. an assault rifle, is a rifle with select fire, one that you choose automatic, or semi-automatic, and sometimes burst fire. Automatic and burst fire rifles are illegal to own without a stage 3 firearms license, also known as the federal firearms license, and it is very hard to obtain. it makes zero sense to ban militaristic style weapons, when the only reason they are disliked is because they look scary. they are usually less accurate, and less comfortable than the normal, everyday hunting rifle, but they can still be effective for hunting varmints and coyotes with their small caliber bullet (the same caliber most people choose as a starter gun for its lacking kick and minor power). Militaristic style weapons good investments, and excellent recreational rifles. my grandma purchased a Colt AR-15 for $1,200, and in only a few months, sold it to an eager buyer for double. The only thing restrictions here would do is limit freedom, and in the United States, that is not what the country was built on. Another thing we were built on, was that the citizens should own more power than the government. That means, that if all balances and checks fail, the citizens should be able to retake the government.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence, JULY 4, 1776

In order to overthrow a government, we would need to be armed with the best combat weapons available to citizens. banning these would be following the trend of most dictators and totalitarians who have banned guns throughout history. A recent example of gun control, is Britain. They disarmed their citizens, and sliced up all of the firearms. The violent crime rate is now up 77% since the gun ban, and the increase in knife injury has caused doctors to call for a ban on point-tipped knives. Banning an implement does not halt violence, and banning militaristic style weapons leaves many equal alternatives.
drhead

Pro

First off, I would like to refute the argument that weapon ownership among civilians would prevent tyranny. Our military has unmanned aerial vehicles capable of precision bombing - no civilian would own a flak turret, and an AR-15 wouldn't help stop a drone. The only practical way to win a revolt against a tyrannical government would be how quickly military-grade hardware can be acquired - while owning what is now considered higher-end of civilian-grade weaponry might help in this regard, the odds would be stacked in such a way that, in order to win any battle, civilians would practically have to have some sort of tactical advantage (e.g. stealth).

That being said, I see no practical use for the kind of firearms that were subject to the assault weapons ban which was proposed in Congress which could not be fulfilled by another firearm. I feel that a handgun would better fulfill the role of home defense (since it is easier to use a handgun indoors). I also feel that a bolt-action or lever-action rifle would be much better for hunting, since not only would more kinetic energy go to the bullet than a blowback semi-automatic rifle, but it would also encourage trigger discipline for the shooter, as well as giving greater satisfaction for successful hits, due to the slower refire rate.

I might also want to correct you where you said that the rifle doesn't determine much about the effectiveness. While it is mostly true that a rifle would determine little about the amount of force applied to a bullet (unless it is a blowback), various things such as barrel length would affect things quite a bit. There's a reason why sawed-off shotguns are illegal in most states. The stability of the barrel would also come into play when determining what kinds of ammunition a gun can handle without undergoing an excessive amount of stress (using overpressurized rounds, for example).

I do support private ownership of firearms for sporting and self-defense, but, to be honest, I don't see anything to justify use of the weapons covered by the assault weapons ban. Their roles are easily filled by other weapons, and a government takeover's success would be determined by how much military-grade hardware is acquired, not civilian-grade.
Debate Round No. 3
mothmanfan

Con

The tactical advantage the citizens would have if there was a civilian versus tyrannical government numbers. Out of 1000 people in he United States, 88.8 of them own a gun. That gives our military, a great amount of armed people to fight. that is why I predict that no such thing would happen in the United States unless all arms are confiscated beforehand, and all of this assuming no foreign aid.

But that argument aside, the handgun, as suggested in your prior argument, is much more prominently used in gun violence than a militaristic rifle. Militaristic style rifles, are used in under 2% of all gun crime, so banning them (assuming no grandfathering in, and illegal marketing) the decrease in crime would be almost immeasurable if not zero. When one weapon is banned, criminals move on to another. in the gun ban in England, where almost all guns were confiscated and destroyed, violence rose, and now doctors are calling for a ban on point-tipped knives because of their sharp increase in stabbings.

As for hunting, I am an avid hunter, killed a turkey just last Sunday. In my state, for deer and turkey season, shotguns are all that are legal, but there are other states that allow rifle usage. There are many times that I have wounded an animal, and not killed it. I have also heard many similar stories. This is incredibly painful for the animal, and it is likely that it ill die of infection. a semi-automatic rifle allows for a larger likeliness of a kill, and with the decrease in hunters recently, that is needed to keep the deadliest animal in North America, the White-Tailed Deer, under control. I have purchased an assault weapon recently, that is a shotgun, because of this. the semi-automatic weapon, seems to be what you have exploited and shown why it isn't needed, and in America, we use may things everyday, that are not needed and serve no practical use. should we outlaw TVs? Video games? Movies? these serve no practical use. Semi-automatic rifles, are also not what this debate is covering. It is covering AR-15s, AK-47s, and other militaristic style weapons. Not all semi-auto weapons. You have also failed to show the difference with guns like the Ruger Mini-14, that was allowed under the Assault Weapons Ban. The Assault Weapons Ban banned guns according to cosmetic features only, not any performance affecting features. it banned folding and collapsing stocks, pistol grips, barrel shroud, a magazine not attached to the grip, and other small, non-performance affecting features. the ban did nothing to sop violence, and manufacturers of the now banned guns took off those ascetic features and put them right back on the market.

Militaristic style weapons are not a big addition on crime, and the only thing a ban would accomplish is a pointless limit on personal freedom, which is not what a free nation does. citizens should be allowed to do what they wish if it does not cause harm to others.
drhead

Pro

I'd like to point out a few smaller things first:


    • Owning a gun still won't do anything to a plane or a tank, unless the guns in questions are flak cannons, SAM launchers, and anti-tank RPGs

    • The stated objective of an assault weapons ban was not to stop gun crimes, but to reduce the amount of people killed before the shooter is dealt with - more people can be killed in a short amount of time with a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine than with a small handgun. While the amount of crimes committed with assault weapons is relatively low, the amount of injuries and fatalities from said crimes would represent a higher ratio.

    • Criminals are idiots. If they are presented with a choice between something modern and scary looking versus something that looks like grandpa's old rifle, which do you think they will choose? Probably the scary looking one.

    • An AK-47 is a fully-automatic weapon, and, as such, is already banned.

    • Many of the "aesthetic" features you listed serve practical purposes. A folding stock obviously allows the gun to be made more compact for carrying or storage. A barrel shroud suppresses the muzzle flash, preventing blindness from firing in dark conditions. Detachable magazines were used as part of the category (semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazine with x amount of features), in other words, tube-loaded rifles would be completely excluded from the ban. One of the features listed as something that could make a weapon banned was "grenade launcher" - I don't even have to argue how that is not aesthetic.

    • I never said anything against semi-automatic firearms, I am only talking about weapons covered by the AWB.

As for your argument about hunting, I don't think I would ever be able to refute it (mainly due to it being anecdotal evidence that I can't relate to), however, I think a lever action shotgun would probably be quick enough for most situations.
Debate Round No. 4
mothmanfan

Con

There are two types of mass murderers; the planned, and the spree. The planners would carefully review their plans, and be sure that everything can go the best way possible for them. They will do research on the type of weapon, the place, the time, as much a they can. The other, spontaneously commits the action with little forethought. The urge for murder is caused by a trigger that makes them grab whatever they have access to, go to the nearest mass, and start firing, slashing, bashing, or and other appropriate method. Most fall into the first category if they are successful. They will find what they need, be it a militaristic AR-15, or their grandpa's old hunting rifle.

I believe you were contradictory in your previous statement. You say you have nothing against semi-automatic weapons, but there are very few difference from a semi-automatic rifle that would be used for sport, and a militaristic style weapon. As I have used as an example before, the Ruger Mini-14, and an AR-15 do pretty much the same thing.

You stated that an AK- is automatic and banned. This is not true there are many AK-47 semi-automatic weapons that one can legally buy a a nearby gun shop. I have shot my friends AK-47, and always see them next to the AR-15 in my local shop. U.S. law requires that all imported AK-47 have previously been converted to semi-automatic.

A folding stock allows a gun to be more compact, but I do not see why this makes it more dangerous. You could say that it makes it more concealed, but it doesn't. It would make the weapon more bulky, and easier to see under clothes. A barrel shroud does nothing to the flash. A barrel shroud covers the barrel and protects the user from burning themselves on the hot barrel after firing. This does not only occur after rapid-fire; my muzzle loading 1858 Enfield barrel gets so hot that I tie a bandanna around it for my hand. My Mosin Nagant, bolt action has a wooden stock around the barrel, and it has burned me through the wood. My AR-15 however, has never burned me, because of its shroud. Tube-loaded rifles are almost never semi-automatic, I have yet to see one, so they would be exempt anyway. Detachable magazines are something almost every modern rifle has no matter the action or round. Grenade launchers are actually almost fully aesthetic, it is illegal to buy grenades for them. There are smaller caliber launchers that you can buy pepper spray, flares, and other non-lethal rounds for. Military caliber is expensive and rare.

Finally, lever-action shotguns are not only hard to find, but they are almost always smooth-bore, therefore not anywhere near as good for deer as a rifled shotgun. Also, lever and pump action shotguns are more vulnerable to misfires, jams, and just not loading at all. Deer can run out of range faster than you can chamber in another round.

By the way, i am really enjoying this debate (it is my first) and appreciate your well thought, well researched arguments. Looking forward to the next round.
drhead

Pro

I'll make this brief, since I've waited until the last minute to post, thanks to exams.

My point was that criminals tend to make irrational decisions. If they were smart people, they wouldn't be murdering people in the first place, now would they? Now, consider the popular culture notions that most Americans have about guns. Now, think about toy guns. Why do toy guns have a red/orange tip on them? It's so people don't think that they are real guns. Now, consider this - if it is necessary to put a red tip on a plastic toy to make sure people know it isn't a real gun, what do you think the odds are of someone mistaking a semi-automatic gun for a fully-automatic gun? I would suppose the odds are fairly high. This goes for idiot criminals and for people who have a gun pointed at them who wouldn't have time to think. This is especially true for the AK-47 - think of one place in the media and popular culture where you've seen someone using a semi-automatic AK. You'll have trouble finding one.

A folding stock wouldn't necessarily let you hide a gun under your shirt. However, it'd be much easier to put it in a briefcase or in a backpack.

Barrel shrouds aren't covered under the assault weapon ban except on pistols, when they can "be used as a hand-hold". It does, however, cover flash suppressors, which (as implied by the name) do suppress the flash. I assumed this is what you meant.

If certain calibers of grenade launchers are used for non-lethal rounds, then I can agree that those should be more loosely regulated (I take it that it wouldn't be so easy to hand-load a rifle grenade). However, I wouldn't go so far as to call it fully aesthetic (vestigial sounds more appropriate).

As for hunting, my final thoughts on the subject would be that, since semi-automatic rifles are a relatively recent invention compared to the practice of deer hunting, it is very possible to kill a deer without even using a gun.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
"Assault weapons" make up less than 2% of gun homicides, the 2 worst mass shootings in the entire WORLD were not committed by them (which dismisses the argument that they have the ability to kill more people) and in the past TEN YEARS, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings? It just makes no sense. Not to mention, 90% of law enforcement officers say they do NOT support a ban on them and an "assault weapons" ban would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT.

AR 15s are sporting/home defense rifles. They are NOT assault rifles. (FYI, AR stands for Armalite rifle) Nothing special about them. Tell me something. Why should "assault weapons" be banned if less than 300 people are killed a year by them (75% being criminals since most murder victims are criminals) but alcohol shouldn't be banned when 10,000 people are killed a year by drunk drivers?

So explain to me, with those facts, why should "assault weapons" be banned?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
mothmanfandrheadTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter AnthraSight
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
mothmanfandrheadTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Sola.Gratia.
Vote Placed by AnthraSight 4 years ago
AnthraSight
mothmanfandrheadTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: ;-)
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 4 years ago
Sola.Gratia
mothmanfandrheadTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF