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

Should we ban semi-automatic weopons?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,638 times Debate No: 30436
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Should we ban semi-automatic weapons? I in my opinion and for the good of america do not think far since 2006 the more guns that have been made, gradually the percentage of gun violence has decreased. Semi automatic weapons should not be ban because only in few cases have there been murders in...according to the F.B.I. the most common murder weapon is a baseball bat. the only reason that it hasn't been banned is because the majority of u.s. citizens use it in a responsible fashion, and for sport....hmm. In many cases semi-automatic weapons have been used for violence....but if you take away these weapon the only people who will end up with these weapons are the non law abiding people, and the psychos. Have you noticed that in the theater shooting the killer went to the station where guns were not allowed, not the one nearest to him where concealed carry was permitted...he went out of his way to break the law. Some people break laws because they are there. So let me appeal to your better nature and say this, will you knowing vote and disarm u.s. citizens, take away sport, take away jobs, and leave Americas people with a very small chance to defend themselves against the non-law abiding citizens who smuggled there guns into the u.s. Or will you make the vote to protect your country.


I urge you to vote for affirmation for the following three reasons

1) 2nd Amendment
Now when the second emmendment was created they used it in a sense of a militia meaning if our government tried to harm us as american citizens it is our right to protect and defend ourselves and because we already have a militia via (national guard, airforce, army, etc.) we do not need guns used in times of war these guns, be ak-47 or ar-15 should not be allowed to be owned, this does not in any way shape or form go against the secod amendment to take these guns away it jus states that we dont need to hold these weapons that are used during war as a so called protection mechanism we can justa s easily hunt and protect our selves without assault rifles

2) Danger
incidents like the sandy hook shooting, or gabby giffards or even the aurora shooting, have put our country in so much threat at the thought that their children or friends or family could get shot at time that it could happen anywhere or any time these reports from police have all stated that there were assault weapons used and in these instances yes you could say well they could have done it with a hand gun but i am a gun enthusiest and im quite sure there are very few handguns that hold 26 bullets there is like i said no need for assault rifles they have put the american citizens through so much hurt mentally and physically in many countries such as sweden and amsterdam they have reported to have less violence then one of our states new york after banning their assault weapons

3) Safety
now it is understandable that our citizens would like to be safe but in the same factor how is it going to be any safer if we are allowing these people or criminals whatever you would like to call them to have the same guns that we have it would not leave you at any less of a chance to defend yourselves or your family for that matter a hand gun can do just that. we can all agree that safety is important to us and our family so that is why we need to pass this we dont need assault rifles for "recreation" they are used by the army for our protection

So for these three reasons of the 2nd amendment, the danger caused to our citizens, and the importance of safety i urge you to vote in affirmation of this resoloution
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for excepting this debate. Lets say there is a criminal outside your door. And this criminal is armed to the tooth with weapons, in the following is and ar-15. You in your house also have an ar-15 as well as a...lets say a glock 17 .22, Had the criminal have known that in your house you had these specific weapons i can safely assume he would have not so eagerly broken into your household. This parable demonstrates the safety and the protection the very sound and power a semi automatic weapon withholds. Lets say the semi automatic weapon ban is passed, You in your house will only have a glock 17 model .22 caliber weapon to defend yourself with. Now if the intruder had know this he would in a a very melancholic manner would eagerly break into your house and all you would be left with is your .22 caliber weapon.

So lets now look at some facts, in a firefight the percent of deaths when police officers are armed, the death percent is 12.3. But when LAW-ABIDING citizens are armed the death percentage is 2.3. There will always be killers in the world, if you can kill someone with a gun you must realize everything is a murder weapon...people reading this debate i entreat you i beg you to vote against the banning of semi-automatic weapons but to keep america safe. People of america in the past many famous leaders have ban guns and it has been chaos. The professionals agree with my opponent, ask idi amin, stalin, pol pot, hitler, mao tse tung, qaddafi, Kim jong ll, castro! They were all famous for murder, tyranny, evil, plain killing. If you take semi-automatic weapons away, taking away all guns will come next. And after that blood tyranny and the end of america or a very damaged piece left. I Tell you brothers of our home america, our nation will be diminished or severely damaged by a civil outreach of blood. There will be 3 sides, the unarmed, The law abiding weapon carriers, and a tyrannic government. So once again i entreat for our nation.


your scenario is nothing but that a scenario there are very few chances of that happening there are many things that you said one of which was the fact you believe that after taking away these guns it will leave space for taking away all guns but in fact it will not we are taking out assault weapons like i said used in times of war there is no point for a common person to use assault weapons for reacreational use. allowing us to have these assault weapons and saying that it takes away the 2nd amendment but under that definition i would be allowed to have a bazooka or a tank the reason to stop this is to put down crime rates so you just proved my point we should get rid of these arms it would harm the american citizens and i understand that there will always be murderers but no offense its alot harder to kill 26 people with a knife so for these reasons that my opponent uses a scenario that would not have to happen if we got rid of these guns and these tyrannical dictators were in reign because people backed them up i urge you to vote in affirmation of this resoloution
Debate Round No. 2


When you said that it is hard to kill 26 people with a knife, i beg to differ...timothy McVeigh was a very smart killer and never once used as gun to kill people. And he killed 168 people. Also in the constitution it clearly states this:the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Hmm......shall not be infringed. I understand that you overlooked this matter, big words have the effect to baffle primitive my contestor.


again you are not fully understanding the rights of the second ammendment they were given to us because during the rev. war we needed them to defend our selves against a government uprising it is not infringing on any right of the second amendment and this guy you brought up killed 186 people and injured 800 people with a car bomb not a knife and going under your definition of the second amendment he was allowed to bear any arm he so wanted aka. a bomb which turned into the oklahoma city bombing proving that point incorrect if we take out these guns and stop these people from buying weaponry that again is used in times of war and no i did not over look the matter in my first argument i stated to you what the 2nd amendment was created for and in second and the third i tell you again that it will not infringe on that amendment because we still have the right to bear arm as a militia sense because of the coast guard air forcce and the army we have a military for the people by the people so we do not need these weapons used in any time of war
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by CongressNut22 3 years ago
Smalls you are an idiot guns wernt allowed in Germany because of the United states and Italy and others they put in the war treaty that Germany couldn't have guns or a standing army learn your history idiot
Posted by giraffelover 3 years ago
What good would banning guns do? That would take guns from law abiding citizens, not criminals.
Posted by smalls 3 years ago
I belive no because that is how world war two started in germany was from Hitler demolishing the gun laws.
Posted by CongressNut22 3 years ago
in the terms of militia by webster and

The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service

meaning i am still right and the coast guard and the army and all other forms of our standing military is a militia

I argue that the right to bear arms is restricted to members of militias, which were common during the time of the revolution and instrumental in maintaining law and order in many towns and villages. The argument follows that militias, not individual citizens, have the constitutionally granted freedom to carry firearms. This viewpoint puts emphasis on the "well regulated Militia" clause of the sentence, stating that the founders believed that militias, not the individual, were responsible for protecting citizens from threats to their freedom from the government.
Posted by bla60ah 3 years ago
The 2nd amendment was created in 1786 when the Constitution was drafted, ten years after the Revolutionary war. The framers had already won the war and put the second amendment in anyways because they wanted the people to have the right to defend themselves. The National Guard, Navy, Airforce, Marines, and Army are all apart of the national standing army and do not fall under the term "militia". That is why the Supreme Court has upheld the notion that the individual has the right to defense with firearms.
Posted by The-patriot 3 years ago
yes nonviolent gun violence has increased but, would you rather fight and save lives or be unarmed..and run...and die.
Posted by TheElderScroll 3 years ago
Those murders purchased the guns via legal source.
Posted by JUSTHERE2WIN 3 years ago
While violence has decreased non fatal gun violence has increased by 20 %
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MochaShakaKhan 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 never actually addressed pro's argument in round 1. In fact he didn't directly deal with any of pro's arguments in the following round. Pro's case had more to do with the question of if semi-automatic weapons are covered under the second amendment. He argued that the second amendment had to do specifically with the fear of government uprising. Since this is not a time of war, such guns aren't needed. Both had spelling and grammar issues, so that point is tied. Conduct to pro due to con calling him "primitive" for not understanding "big words". No sources were used so sources are tied.