The Instigator
nato1111
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
USN276
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Should "assault weapons" be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
USN276
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,243 times Debate No: 49914
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

nato1111

Con

Tin Foil Hat Wearing Morons desire assault weapons to defend against potentially tyrannical governments.
However I think they forget Americans live in a liberal democracy, therefore if they deem the Government becoming too authoritarian then all they have to do is go to the ballet box.

What's more is that if the government were oppressing the the populace to such an extent that civil unrest were to breakout then a military coup would more than likely precede any actions undertaken by an armed militia (even negate the requirement).

As a Non-US citizen I can't fathom why US citizens feel they need assault rifles. I mean, come on, a largely domesticated and untrained populace couldn't defend against a technologically advanced war machine, even if it tried. The US has been at domestic peace for far too long to suggest a militia, of the correct experience and hardship, exists to be effective against Government forces (i.E. The US population has been devoid of tactical armed civil conflict therefore unable to produce veterans capable of combating organised governmental tyranny).

Pro assault rifle people tend to cite the fact that more homicides are committed using hand guns than assault rifles but neglect to acknowledge that more mass murders are committed using assault rifles than hand guns.

I would suggest handgun homicides are typically between rival factions; due to robberies; or, at least, committed by someone known to the victim, whereas; assault rifle murders' are typically committed by a psychopath indiscriminately targeting strangers. I think the reason assault rifles should be banned is one of damage limitation, plain and simple.
USN276

Pro

Ok, I love a good debate.

Funny thing is that you copied and pasted your beginning title from someone else's comment. But, anyway, let me begin. You call us "tin foil hat wearing morons" Tell me something. Why should a government, the very people who WORK for the citizens be the only ones with guns? Since when does the employee tell the boss how to run the business?

Now think about this. If "assault weapons are so dangerous, why do they 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. 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?

Why do you support gun control laws that restrict good citizens when we know over 90% of mass shooters are on or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs which doctors and psychiatrists are finding to be the cause to mass shootings, and not actually the mental illness itself?
Debate Round No. 1
nato1111

Con

You make a good point but you have to take into consideration that those (Under) 300 people will now forever loose that person due to some psychopath that is legally allowed to have a "Assault Rifle" for his/her own purposes sure there are little killings but there are still people being killed.

Now take a second to look out-side the box and think you have just lost your son while you were at work and he was at school you then find out it was in fact a legally bought "Assault Rifle" then your told there was a psychopath that killed your own loved son and yet still he was about to go down the street and but a semi/full auto "Assault Rifle".
Now your grieving and wondering if the government/anybody could have done to prevent this catastrophe you think why are people allowed to buy "Assault Rifles?" the answer you will get is "Home defence and Hunting".

Have you ever personally needed to defend your home from others that want only to hurt your or take your belonging's usually if you have police that will acutely do something to defend you and the town/city that's when you will have lower crime rates is when police become better how they protect and serve even if you can remove that 2% of "Assault Rifle" homicides it can and will make the U.S.A a slightly better friendlier place to stay or live.
I eagerly await your reply.
USN276

Pro

I know i make a good argument because I've argued it, and I kid you not, over 100 times. I am also prepared to dismiss this argument you have placed in front of me as well.

There is no doubt in my mind we have a problem of letting people who shouldn't own guns, own them. That is why I am such a huge advocate of better background checks. Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. We need to restrict criminals and the mentally insane.

Now take a second to look out-side the box and think you have just lost your son while you were at work and he was at school you then find out it was in fact a legally bought "Assault Rifle" then your told there was a psychopath that killed your own loved son and yet still he was about to go down the street and but a semi/full auto "Assault Rifle". Do you wanna know what would be on my mind? What kind of psychiatric drug was this person on? Did you know OVER 90% of mass shooters were on or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs? Did you doctors are discovering psychiatric drugs are the root to mass shootings? I wouldn't be focusing on "was my son killed with a scary looking gun" It wouldn't matter because banning them wouldn't save his life. Obviously you paid no attention to my comments because I gave you clear proof an "assault weapons" ban would save no lives what so ever. Law enforcement admit it themselves.

I also recommend you read my comment about the term "assault rifle" please.

Now when you disregard and ignore everything I just told you and say "a ban would save those 2% of lives" it aggravates me because you are completely contradicting logic. If "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than other rifles, why do you think if they were banned, that 2% of people wouldn't be killed by a different kind of weapon? That's like saying "let's ban ONLY Vodka to stop drunk driving." What do you think will happen? People will just drink a different kind of beverage. It won't stop drunk driving. An "assault weapons" ban won't save lives because the assailant will simply use a different kind of weapon. Anders Brevik used a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapon" and he holds the record for the worst mass shooting.

So I'm sorry, but all your claims have been dismissed. Basically at this point, you should just say "you're correct, and I'm wrong."
Debate Round No. 2
nato1111

Con

You know what I have no idea how to contradict this debate there is no way to make this world a better place no matter how much we ban there will always be conflict weather it is from alcohol fuled violence or a psychopath.
There will never be a perfect world we just have to face it.
I simply cannot argue that assault weapons should be banned because of their impact they have not created where as handguns is what should be debated.
USN276

Pro

Well, you seem to forget what I mentioned before. Over 90% of mass shooters were on or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs. Doctors are even saying that psychiatric drugs are the route to these mass shootings. Rather than banning any type of guns from mentally sane law abiding citizens, why not create psychiatric drug laws and better background checks?

I also appreciate that you changed your mind on the subject.
Debate Round No. 3
nato1111

Con

It seems like you have persuaded me I do believe if they would just have a good background check they might prevent even that 2% of deaths can be prevented for the greater good.
USN276

Pro

Well of course. I am a HUGE advocate for tougher background checks. I don't necessarily think the background checks would just prevent the 2% of homicides committed by "assault weapons" I'm sure they could prevent homicides from all types of weapons. The point is, a homicide committed with a so called "assault weapon" can be done by a different type of firearm.

I appreciate that you decided to look at this in a different perspective. That is my goal. To get people to see this topic in a different perspective and to realize there are other solutions to a problem that will make EVERYONE happy.
Debate Round No. 4
nato1111

Con

To be honest i never really disagreed with the ban because i love assault weapons i come from australia where you simply can't get them to be honest i believe that it is a good idea to keep them legal.
USN276

Pro

I'm sorry, i'm just confused. You say you never really disagreed with the ban and you said you love "assault weapons" I'm very confused.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Well, there is actually a way to get a semi automatic weapons permit in Australia. it's not impossible but it is not easy. You should do some research on that for sure.
Posted by nato1111 2 years ago
nato1111
I was meaning that I don't agree with the assault weapons ban I like I idea of having that freedom to have those types of weapons because I live in Australia it's almost impossible to get them so I just like them.
Posted by nato1111 2 years ago
nato1111
i would appreciate if my (if any) comment is not called "moron" thanks
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Oh no, I was talking to the guy who voted.
Posted by nato1111 2 years ago
nato1111
u talking to me?
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Hematite, care to discuss?
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Never mind actually. I couldn't help myself so i just replied.
Posted by nato1111 2 years ago
nato1111
i do apologise the title was quite convincing though
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
I shall reply tomorrow when I get home.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
FYI, "assault rifles" are fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are basically illegal without a very special permit which VERY few people own. You can't even buy a fully automatic weapon in a gun store. The debate isn't fully automatic weapons.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tyler3923 2 years ago
tyler3923
nato1111USN276Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to pro due to cons first sentence. spelling goes to pro due to con having several misspelled words. Ballot being misspelled in his second sentence. con conceded at the end so argument also goes to pro. no sources were cited, thus that category received a tie.
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
nato1111USN276Tied
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 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: No sources were used. I am currently in a debate with pro about the same subject. I do say that pro does argue well and that he is very convincing. I do say that he has convinced me quite well, but in the debate I currently have with him, I will not concede victory and will still act like the proper opponent in our debate
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
nato1111USN276Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
nato1111USN276Tied
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 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: Pro gets conduct just because of Con's "moron" comment. Pro didn't necessarily make better arguments, but Con conceded his argument basically partway through the debate.