The Instigator
Juris_Naturalis
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
mcraftKnight
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Should the citizens of the U.S be able to use AR15s or the like for self-defence.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Juris_Naturalis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 39373
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Juris_Naturalis

Pro

I noticed your post on the opinions page and would like to debate you. 1st round acceptance.
mcraftKnight

Con

Thank you for inviting me, it's a pleasure. I am sure that there will be no hostile words exchanged, and we will leave wiser than when we began. Let the debating begin!
Debate Round No. 1
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

Alright then, I'm just going to jump into it.

Citizens of the U.S should be able to use the AR15 for defensive purposes (and any other purpose really) for 3 basic reasons.

1. The AR15 is a lightweight, compact firearm that is easy to use and can be used by anyone regardless of age or stature. In (A) a 15 year old is able to use his dad's AR to fend off home invaders.

2. The AR15 offers greater stopping power over a handgun, but doesn't over penetrate interior walls like a shotgun will (B,C) .

3. An AR15 with a standard capacity magazine is arguably the most effective tool for defence when presented with large groups of ill-willed people, such as the violent mobs during the Rodney King trials (D)

A.

B.

C.

D.
mcraftKnight

Con

mcraftKnight forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

I concede my points.
mcraftKnight

Con

Exactly for the reason that it is easy to operate, citizens should not be allowed to use it. Kids under 13 years old have taken their parents' guns and shot innocent people with them. Cases in which kids shoot robbers are rare, and I have to say that it was stupid of the kid to do that. He was lucky the robbers were not armed. If your house is being robbed, you just run, 'cause you don't know what kind of weapons they have. Yes, it would have been useful in the riots, but then he would have been charged for murder. The fact that it doesn't penetrate interior walls doesn't matter, as it can penetrate flesh and bone. There have been many school shootings conducted by a kid with his parent's gun.
Debate Round No. 3
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

Interesting that you state that 13 year old children will take their parents guns and kill people with them. However, this argument is flawed for two reasons : 1.) You don't even provide a source to verify that this happens with any sort of regularity to deem necessary to bar U.S citizens from possessing the AR15 and 2.) The FBI has shown that the majority of gun deaths are committed with handguns (8251 in 2012), and a very few are committed with rifles (325 in 2012) , which is the category the AR15 falls under ( I ). Stating that the Boy's decision to fight against the invaders as stupid is an opinion. What was wrong with him engaging an imminent violent threat? The boy was a deputy's son so he obviously knew how to use the rifle, and with it he defended the lives of himself and his younger sister. Even if you say "you just run, 'cause you don't know what kind of weapons they have" (which is another opinion that lacks a factual foundation) , the boy had the upper hand for 2 reasons, He obviously knew the layout of the house better than the intruders and had superior armament. So the boy's decision to stand his ground was a logical choice that ensured his own safety and that of his sisters.

No, the man would not have been charged for murder because murder is defined as :

the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought ( II ) .

Self defence it not unlawful and by the nature of self defence, cannot have malicious forethought. Therefore, the man would not have been charged with murder.

The fact that it doesn't penetrate interior walls is a really big deal. If you live in an urban or densely populated area, is it responsible of you to use a firearm that over penetrates multiple walls? No. So, using a firearm that doesn't over-penetrate walls and potentially harming people on the other side can be seen as a "responsible" decision.

Show at least 2 instances of school shootings where the perpetrator was a child and the firearm he used was an AR15, since that is what we're debating , that he stole from his parents.

I. http://www.fbi.gov...

II.http://www.merriam-webster.com...
mcraftKnight

Con

mcraftKnight forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

Well I'm just going to wrap with the following:

The AR15, or the like, should be available to citizens of the U.S for defence for the following reasons

1. It is easy to learn how to use and can be used by anyone in any situation.

2. It doesn't over penetrate walls and is safe to use in densely populated areas.

3. Most deaths from firearms are from handguns, so there is a statistically lower chance of your gun being used in a crime.
mcraftKnight

Con

mcraftKnight forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 2 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
See the comment below. I thought it meant something else.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I concede my points.

lolol
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
So yeah, my vocabulary was a fail there :p
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
What I meant was, I'll pass for the time being. My opponent said he missed a round so I didn't want to post new arguments without him being able to address my first. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by jnedwards11 3 years ago
jnedwards11
Sorry, to clarify my garbled RFD;

1) Gave conduct to Pro because he was here for the whole debate
2) S&G to Con because of the "I concede my points" bit. I'll assume you did not mean to concede your arguments to nothing at all
3) Arguments go to Con's mostly unrefuted claims
4) Sources go to Con bc he used them and Pro didn't.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
It's alright. I forfeited the last round of my most recent debate.
Posted by mcraftKnight 3 years ago
mcraftKnight
I apologize, I was caught up with school work and plans, and could not post an argument.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
I just now realised I mis-punctuated the title of the debate. There should be a question mark, not a period.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jnedwards11 3 years ago
jnedwards11
Juris_NaturalismcraftKnightTied
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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Gave conduct to Pro because he was here for the whole debate S&G to Con because of the "I concede my points" bit. I'll assume you did not mean to concede your arguments to nothing at all Arguments go to Con mostly us refuted claims Sources are Con bc he used them and pro didn't.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Juris_NaturalismcraftKnightTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF. S&G for "I concede my points", which should be "I extend my points". Had I taken PRO's phrase literally, I would have scored arguments for CON as well. Look up "concession" in a dictionary.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
Juris_NaturalismcraftKnightTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I am not sure what happened in this debate - a glitch or something seems to have derailed part of Pro's argument. I gave Conduct to Pro for the FF, and Sourcing, because Con did not use sources.