Resolve - The United States should ban all assault wapons.
Debate Rounds (3)
The FAWB was enacted on September 13, 1994 as a part of a far-reaching crime prevention initiative called the Violent Crime Control and Prevention Act of 1994. The ban was designed to limit or prohibit the possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and features such as; grenade launchers, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, and pistol grips. The ban was sunsetted in 2004 and has not been renewed since. My argument consists of three main areas of analysis.
First, in spite of the assault weapons ban violent crimes continue to occur in our nation. This is because the weapons named in the ban are rarely linked to gun related crimes. Many studies show that the preferred weapon by criminals and gangs is not the AR-15 or an AKM-47 which are big, bulky, and expensive weapons named on the banned list. Instead these felons use Glock 9mms and similar small handguns that you can easily conceal and buy for a small amount at almost any sporting goods store. In addition, crime continued in spite of the ban because the small percentage of individuals determined to commit violent crime, such as mass shootings, are willing to circumvent bans and other measures to acquire these weapons when they want them. Therefore, the ban creates an environment for a black market wherein banned assault weapons can be bought and sold. Additionally, manufacturers have produced the "Copycat" weapon, which are firearms similar to the banned firearms but with minor changes to evade the ban, and equal or greater danger.
Secondly, several studies show that the ban did not reduce gun crime at all. A study at the University of Pennsylvania"s center Criminology found no significant evidence that the misnamed assault weapons ban reduced gun crime in any way. Another study by John R. Lott, empirical researcher and author of the highly acclaimed book, "More Guns, Less Crime" found similar results. Mr. Lott"s research found no impact on violent crime rates from the assault weapons ban and in fact, a slight increase in murders and violent crime rates. When the ban was lifted in 2004, gun crimes and police killings were expected to surge, instead, they declined. In the first nine months that the ban was lifted, nationwide murder rates fell by 3.6%. The trend was consistent; murders kept on declining after the weapons ban ended. Even more interesting, the seven states that had their own assault weapons ban saw a smaller drop than the 43 states with out such laws. The states with bans averaged a 2.4% decline in murders (and in three if those states the murders rose) while states without bans saw the average decline more than 4%. This evidence leaves the question; should we really be going after assault weapons?
As my third and final argument I would like to remind everyone that this ban is in violation of the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights, i.e the right to bear arms. Although it can be argued that weapons have changed since the time the Bill of Rights was signed, it is important to remember why the 2nd amendment was established; in response to the Battle of Lexington. The Battle of Lexington was an event of the American Revolution in which the British Monarchy attempted to take the weapons of the American people because it was too dangerous for them to have weapons of superior class. That is basically what the US government is trying to do now by taking our assault weapons. Only now the superior weapon is the AR-15 and not a single shot musket. The 2nd amendment grew out of the Battle of Lexington because the founding fathers wanted citizens to be able to defend themselves against the possibility of tyrannical governments and criminals with weapons that would do the job effectively. If our government now wants to take away our assault weapons, not only are they depriving us of our ability to effectively defend ourselves, they are defying the will of the men who built this great nation.
In conclusion, banning assault weapons will not benefit the US in anyway and in doing so will only bring harm to our chance of defense. Thank You.
Also, there is obviously no argument to be made for hunting with assault rifles. I think as humans we definitely have the advantage over the animal kingdom. No one hunts to feed their families anymore, hunting is purely for sport. Assault rifles would cross that line between sport and just flat out cruelty.
As for the second ammendment, which was written over 300 years ago to arm militias, can be reassessed. White people used this "right" to kill untold numbers of native Americans and animals. Self defense is just silly to me. Why? Well, I ll close with this last question. Ask yourself, have I ever needed a gun to defend myself? I can answer that, it's no. There's a huge difference between needing and wanting. People want weapons because they empower them.
Also, I would like to see the source where you found that 90% of assault weapons are being smuggled from America to Mexico. This is in fact is false and according to the FBI"s international crime statistics, in nearly all cases of weapons smuggling to Mexico, Colombia was where all the weapons were traced back to. Mexico"s southern border defense is a joke and if you don"t believe me, check the amount of funding that goes into it. Smuggling weapons into Mexico from South America is as easy as stealing candy from a baby. The US on the other hand targets those smuggling weapons in and out of the border.
Secondly, about your hunting argument, I never made an argument for hunting because in many cases hunting with assault weapons is already illegal. To say that hunting is purely for sport is also false when you consider that there is a high market demand for foods like deer, dove, and antelope, which are only acquired by hunting. You must also consider Alaska, where people; US citizens, still hunt for survival. Anyways, many assault weapons are already banned in the case of hunting so I have no idea where you are going with that argument.
Finally, I believe that the murder of Native Americans was justified for the following reason; if Native Americans had the weapons that white folks had, they would have killed us the way we killed them. They did plenty of damage with bows and arrows, just imagine if they had Winchesters! The reason it turned out the way it did was natural selection; the white people were more advanced and had more advanced technology.
Also, there are plenty of people who have needed weapons to defend themselves, so think of others before yourself.
To conclude, consider this; Mexico drug gangs finally topple the Mexican government (which they aren"t far from), with the help of their South American allies they decide to come to the US. Now civilians need a way of self-defense, and there is one kind of advanced weapons available to almost all: the assault rifle. I bet the your second amendment right sounds pretty damn good now. If you think that scenario is too far fetched, just do a little research.
Ronhawk forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I'll start by pointing out that most of Con's arguments don't help him. Con, you started this round. It's not enough for your to prove that assault weapons bans are ineffective and that there are ways to circumvent it. You have to showcase harms in utilizing those methods. There are harms for the black market and in badly made weapons, but I don't see them. There are possible harms in allowing only criminal organizations to have these guns. I don't see them either. So I'm left with this rights argument, and frankly, it's not very convincing. But you got lucky, as your opponent barely addresses it and that response contained no convincing argumentation whatsoever. You have to do more to support your argument - a simple response that we already abridge the second amendment with background checks and some automatic weapons bans would have been enough to tack this back as written. As Pro forfeited the last round, Con also wins on conduct.
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.