The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Military Style Rifles (Stay Legal)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,000 times Debate No: 32494
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




You say we do not "need" them, you are probably correct...We want them.

Who are other people to tell us what we "need" and what we "want." We are told that a simple handgun will suffice for self-defense, and it seems quite alright, but the fact is, the same logic can be applied to other things in life. Why do people "need" a BMW that costs over 60k, when they can just buy a car that costs 10k and gets them from point A to point B safely. The answer is simply, because they can. They don't need a fancy BMW, they want one because the have the money for it.

Anti-gun activists say "The 2nd amendment was written over 250 years ago and does not apply to now" well I will tell you two things, and two things only: first, the same right that allows you to speak against guns is the same right that allows me to speak for gun rights. Second, if that is so, then we obviously do not need: Human Rights, Free Speech, Protection from Self-Incrimination, and many more things that were written such long time ago.

When going about making new laws about "Gun Control" we need to do so with a clear mindset and not with a mind that is corrupt with emotion and illogical thoughts. Lastly, for you Anti-gun activists, I do not mind listening to you for an hour, but when we start talking do not interrupt us or ignore us.

Not all Pro-gun activist are crazies, in-fact, those are just the odd ones out of the crowd.

God Bless America!


First of all, I think that any body in their right mind does not need military style rifles. What does the average person going do with one? The only excuse people have is that they can go shoot on the range with the range with them. You can't hunt with military style rifles therefore, you wouldn't need one. The only reason you would need a gun, is either for hunting game, or for safety. You don't need an AK-47 to protect your self, because what if the other person trying to "break in" had a military style rifle? Then you would be in bad luck because you can't protect your self from a AK-47.
Debate Round No. 1


I am glad you have accepted my challenge and I look forward to debating with you.

You see it comes down again to the "want" and "need" scenario. I cannot speak for all of America's gun hobbyists and so on. What I can say is that most people feel the need to own an AR-15 or other similar models only due to the fact they have the money and they simply can get one. It is more of a hobby/investment to own a military style weapon. I have seen great law-abiding citizens take their rifles and go to range and shoot them; just for fun and no other reason.

1. Average arm length I have found to be is around 32 inches (could be longer or shorter)

2. Average AR-15 is 16-20 inches, when in your arm (tucked back into your shoulder) it is usually shorter than your entire arm length.

3. Average magazine capacity for AR-15 is 15-30 rounds.

4. Average handgun is about 4-6 inches long

5. Average handgun magazine capacity is 9-10

So what it really comes down to is the amount of bullets that can be stored in one magazine, but if someone really wants to do damage, all they have to do is buy more magazines or bigger ones, which is really easy.

I am all for restricting large capacity magazines, who needs over 20-30 rounds. If you really think about it, a handgun is a better choice for any wrong doing (I do [not] condone violence) it is smaller, compact, lightweight, and gives more room for ammo. A AR-15 is big, clunky, heavy, and long in most cases. It really is a tragedy that those insolent people used AR-15s to kill those people, but in reality it is such a smaller fraction of what really goes on.

The number of deaths per weapon type:

6,220 deaths by handguns (intentional and unintentional)

679 deaths by rifles, shotguns, and AR-15s (intentional and unintentional)

The number of deaths per type of death:

Suicide; 38,285 (any method)
Accidents; 120,859
Smoking; 443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from second hand smoke)
Alcohol; 25,000; (drinking and driving)
Alcohol; 100,000 (total)

When looking at all of this data, you can really see who the culprit (s) (are/is)

To answer your question very simply is that people can buy AR-15s because it is their constitutional right to do so. Handguns are the ones needed to be more regulated than AR-15s, and legislators need to stop acting on emotion and more on logic.

And if the other person has a military style rifle, does that simply mean you would have better odds than if you didn't have one? I say no. It is like insurance- some people buy outrageously large protection plans even if they are not needed. Again, it all comes back to the "needs" and "wants." No one can say what anyone needs or wants but only that person themselves.

I bid you a fair day and I am anticipating your response.


I say we end this and go get McDonald's.
Debate Round No. 2


As you see my contender has most certainly thrown in the towel (given up).

As you see the logic I have presented has most certainly given him/her no other choice, but to give up and ask me to go eat McDonald's.

To further my debate, I would like to explain why people hate guns. They hate guns because the have the capability to take a life, which is how most of them see it; but it is not the case. As you have heard before, there is more than one side to anything. With guns, you can either take a life, or save a life. But as always, it is up to the person, not the firearm.

When someone misspells a word do they blame writing utensil or themselves? They blame themselves, and the same follows with car accidents which takes more lives than guns do by a factor of of 40 times, yet we do not ban cars or anything related to them. If I (hypothetically) were to crash a car into a person, would it be my fault or the cars fault if simply was being negligent and irresponsible? It would be my fault. Unless the accelerator were to jam and I was unable to un-jam it; but even then, the car would have not moved if I had not pushed on the accelerator. Being so, I am sure I could still sue the car company for negligence in reporting the faulty part- still a human error.

To break it down, yes, guns are made to injure, mame, and kill, but as law abiding citizens we do want to do that. Guns need to stored safely and kept away from people with mental disorders. We need to realize the potential of a fire and respect that.

Lastly, if I were a criminal, why in the heck would I buy a gun legally? Does that even make sense? If a wrong-doer wants to reek havoc, then I am sure they will illegally obtain a firearm instead of a legal way. The black market is full of these and banning or making it harder for the law abiding citizen to acquire I just moronic and senseless.

I thank my contender for his response, even if it was short and humorous.


You obviously know nothing and I'm sorry you were adopted.
Debate Round No. 3


What a thoughtful argument. I always enjoy debating with close minded people- just shows their level competence and intellect.

We need laws that make sense, not ones that are a "one size fits all."


McLovinit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Cyrus 3 years ago
I know, but for the fact of matter, it is styled like a military weapon; it function just a bit differently though.
Posted by stomp1444 3 years ago
shouldn't be banned they are not military weapons they are semi auto only not select fire
No votes have been placed for this debate.