The Instigator
rpdude
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TonytheTiger1967
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Should Semi Automatic Rifles be prohibited to the public?

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 5 votes the winner is...
TonytheTiger1967
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,106 times Debate No: 29716
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

rpdude

Con

The sale of semi-automatic rifles should not be prohibited.

Second Amendment- Right To Bear Arms
Shooters- not guns- are the problem.

NRA- an AR-15 (used in Aurora and Newtown Shootings)- the most popular rifle in the country - or another weapon in the semiautomatic family can discharge in five seconds, Keene said,

"Well, they fire when you pull the trigger... they don't keep firing. That's a fully automatic weapon."
The issue is the mental health system of America.
Ex. Adam Lanza suffered from many mental disabilities including Asperger"s Syndrome.
"owning a firearm... is a constitutional right," says Keene
"In the it next few years, there are going to be dozens of lawsuits brought to say what is and what isn't reasonable restrictions," Keene said. "We'll argue those, and we're perfectly willing to. Today, Bob, the question isn't how many bullets are going to fit in a magazine; is the gun somebody has got ugly or not ugly? The question is, can we keep guns out of the hands of people who are potential killers?
http://www.cbsnews.com...
Possible Points:
Hunting
Owning a semi-automatic rifle is more than just a possession, it is a hobby.
They use their guns for target practice and hunting small game like rabbits, squirrels and coyotes.
These guns are limited. They also say that as a self-defense weapon, the AR-15, which is based on the military"s M-16 and M-4, has its limits: It cannot be carried in public, and in the home it is potentially less accurate than a shotgun.

"The argument is you have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, so you have an absolute right to have a clip with as many bullets as you want," Mr. Kent Carper said. "If you follow that to its logical conclusion, you can have bullets like missiles."

"But the issue we have is not banning weapons, it"s crazy people."

Fifteen years ago, a mass workplace shooting at the Connecticut Lottery took the lives of four supervisors at the agency. A disgruntled staff member with a history of mental issues shot his four bosses, chasing one down in the parking lot, and then killed himself.

It was later discovered that the shooter, Matthew Beck, who had just returned from a disability leave for mental issues, had previously attempted suicide and his house was loaded with guns.
TonytheTiger1967

Pro

Thank you for the request for debate.

The problem with your statement of fact is that is a fact from Mr. Keene, and who knows what qualifications Mr. Keene may have.
We have two issues here. The first one is Mental Heath Issues. You are correct the mental health care in this country is deplorable. But on one hand you fight the President on Health Care reform that will better cope with Mental Health issues, but then on the other hand you want better mental health reporting and medical help. So if we are agreement that better and approved Mental Health system in this country is needed, then lets stand behind the Presidents Health Care proposal and see where it leads. Something is better than nothing, I'm sure you will agree. I am for mandatory reporting to local law enforcement any and gun owner who has mental issues or has threaten others or himself with harm. I'm sure you agree that is most of these mass killings, the lack of reporting by doctors and guardians where to blame and could have prevented the shootings of innocent people.
The second is the either the type of gun or the type of ammunition or how much ammunition or the right to process whatever you want. I'm not sure what you where trying to say.
But to keep it clear and simple. The First Amendment has been changed by the courts many times and with time will change again to fit the society we live in now. For example, it ok to speak your mind, but you are not allowed to Yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. You don't have the right to harm others by your right to speak. The Fourth Amendment right protects are right to privacy and protect us against warrant less searches, but we see every year how the courts have re examined this amendment and changed to where its fits with the dangers of today's world. For example, probable cause was the basis for most warrants, now it digressed to mere suspicion and law enforcement can invade your private space.
I say all of that to say this, the United States Constitution is a living document, the framers intended it that way. If the founding fathers wanted it to be black and white with no changes or reinterpretations then they would not have allowed for states and congress to amend it.
NOW, with that in mind. Assault guns and semi automatic weapons where designed for military use. For what ever reason, the NRA and few gun owners think that if its a gun, they should be allowed to process it. WRONG, the tank in a sense of things is a big gun, but I don't see the NRA, at least not yet, promote the use of Tanks with its membership. Whys is that? Because the Tank is not a practical weapon for non military civilians. As in the tank, the Fully and semi automatic weapon is not piratical for citizens. It serves no purpose but to kill multiple people in a very short time period. As you say, its not accurate to hunt with or use with target practice, its illegal to carry on the streets. So why the fuss?
If you listen to the hearing in Washington yesterday, I was amazed at the rights scenarios of what could happen, or stories of why they would need assault weapons. In every case the NRA and their cronies, failed to bring one story of when an assault weapon protected a citizen from crime. But on the other hand, I can send you several hundred of where a assault weapon and a semi automatic weapon where used to rob, kill and destroy peoples lives.
Face it, we have a problem here in this country and less restrictions on guns is not the answer.
For example, we have a problems with Drugs and the way it destroys lives and cause harm and crime. What did we do? We passed laws to tackle the problem. Of course we still have a drug problem, and we always will. But doing away with the drug laws is not the answer to the problem of drug use. The same with Child porn and DUI, we have laws to protect us from these issues.
We have a problem with Guns in general but mostly with certain specific types of weapons and they need to be outlawed and forbidden to own or buy.

I look forward to your response
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 1 year ago
Deadlykris
I should pay more attention when I'm interacting on this site from my phone.
Posted by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
Con plagiarized his debate arguments beginning with "Fifteen years ago..."

http://connecticut.onpolitix.com...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
rpdudeTonytheTiger1967Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con initiated a one-round debate. That's a really bad idea. Pro's arguments were bogus, but they stood unrefuted, so Pro wins arguments. Con copied his whole argument without attributing the source. Had he given the source, there would be no violation.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 1 year ago
Deadlykris
rpdudeTonytheTiger1967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: --
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 1 year ago
Skepsikyma
rpdudeTonytheTiger1967Tied
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: Conduct and sources for the plagiarism pointed out by likespeace. Arguments and grammar due to the fact that Pro actually made a coherent argument while Con's post is a disjointed, rambling mess. There is a way to defend gun rights; this isn't it.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 1 year ago
Grantmac18
rpdudeTonytheTiger1967Tied
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: Have to concede all points to Pro, Con plagiarized his entire argument and did not cite his last quote; pointed out by likespeace. Had Con not "copy and pasted" his arguments, Pro simply presented a much more substantial case. Easy victory for Pro
Vote Placed by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
rpdudeTonytheTiger1967Tied
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: See comments. Con plagiarized his arguments, so full points awarded to Pro.