The Instigator
USN276
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SamStevens
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

So called "assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,681 times Debate No: 52463
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (0)

 

USN276

Pro

This topic is a debate on "assault weapons" (semi automatic rifles with "assault weapon" features) Not semi automatic rifles in general, unless you want to debate that,
SamStevens

Con

Since there are two different terms, I will go with the legal term and not the political term which is "The United States law banned the manufacture and transfer of certain newly manufactured semi-automatic firearms and ammunition feeding devices (magazines)." ( wikipedia)Yes I certainly think they should restrict the type of assault guns allowed though not ban all of semi automatic pistols since they posses some characteristics of assault weapons like detachable magazines and automatically extracting the used cartridge out of the camber and replacing it with a new one. I think they should ban AK-47's and other weapons like it to reduce violence since they are basically military grade weapons. With semiautomatic pistols, they should require a background check.

My personal opinion of semi automatic pistols is that they should decrease the caliber so if a person does decide to shoot, less damage would be done and possible less deaths. As for bullets, they should be less damaging so people who get shot aren't injured as badly. Since the caliber is decreased, owners would have to shoot more accurately which means if they get robbed, they would have to shoot at the knees, feet, or chest. They would be taught to do so when they are training with the fire arm.

I also believe people with mental instabilities, like sudden anger or rage should not have possession of a gun for obvious reasons as they could shoot up a store with people in it for no reason. Military grade weapons should stay in the military and police guns should stay with the police. Even the police's guns should be down graded since there was that cop that shot a person in a movie theater for texting.

With assault weapons like the AK-47 and others like it banned and semiautomatic that possess assault weapons qualities decreased in their abilities( fire power, bullet strength), there would be less deaths in crimes.

This is my second debate so i am a little rusty.
Debate Round No. 1
USN276

Pro

Since I have discussed what you now mean in the comment section, I have the ability to argue now.

First thing is first. So called "assault weapons" like the AR 15 and the civilian Ak 47 are NOT fully automatic rifles. Semi automatic rifles are NOT assault rifles. The definition of an "assault rifle" is a fully automatic long gun. (FYI, AR does not stand for "assault rifle") Now, i can argue that fully automatic weapons shouldn't be banned in a different debate, but that is not the topic for this one.
The debate is on semi automatic rifles with "assault weapon" features like the bayonet lug, flash suppressor, pistol grip, and adjustable buttstock. The term "assault weapon" was created by the media to fool citizens into believing that rifles like the AR 15 function the same as a fully automatic M16. Civilian firearms are STRICTLY semi automatic. The AR 15 is NOT a military weapon. Military weapons have fully automatic capabilities. The AR 15 was specifically designed for civilian uses like self defense and sporting.

Now, people often make the claim "assault weapons" (like the semi automatic AR 15 and Ak 47. which are just examples of so called "assault weapons") have greater killing abilities. If that held any water, explain why "assault weapons"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.

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?

So explain to me, with those facts, why should "assault weapons" be banned?

Now high capacity magazines. A woman once defended her home from a burglar and shot the guy SIX TIMES point blank range. Here's the good part. The guy DIDN'T die and was able to run away. Tell what she would have to do if THREE guys came into her home? (and multiple home invasions are very common) I'll have whatever type of gun I want and what ever sized magazine i want.

"My personal opinion of semi automatic pistols is that they should decrease the caliber so if a person does decide to shoot, less damage would be done and possible less deaths. " so what you are basically saying is that we should prohibit 9mm ammunition (the most common handgun ammunition in America) so we can make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves? That doesn't make sense. You want to ban "powerful handgun rounds" because criminals shoot each other on the streets? Why is it fair to make it harder for good citizens to defend themselves just so gang bangers and street thugs don't kill themselves.

You completely forget about the point of owning a handgun. A handgun is for self defense. No one wants to defend themselves with a tiny .22Lr bullet. I want to defend myself with a 9mm, or a 40cal, or a 45cal. I want rounds that will protect me and stop someone from harming me. If you can shoot someone 6 times with a 9mm and they still won't drop, what do you expect me to do when some savage comes charging at me with a knife and I only have a .22? (.22s are basically 4x smaller than a 9mm)

here's some interesting facts about mass shootings.

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. if we know this fact, what the hell is the point in banning "scary looking guns" and "high" capacity magazine devices when we have an alternative solution that can work just as well and doesn't prohibit law abiding citizens from certain magazines and firearms? And, why not better background checks too like you said? LOOK for ALTERNATIVES to stopping tragedies rather than taking peoples constitutional rights away.

So explain, with the facts given about "scary assault weapons" high capacity magazines, and the cause for mass shootings, do you still stand with your previous opinion on gun control?
SamStevens

Con

Actually an AK-47 has fully automatic capabilities.

Fire capabilities:

Cyclic 600 rounds/min,[5] practical
40 rounds/min semi-automatic[5]
*100 rounds/min fully automatic[5]*

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semiautomatic rifles with a bayonet lug and flash suppressor make them even more dangerous. Who needs a bayonet attached to their gun? All that is going to lead to is more violent/fatal crimes, here is a chart to show this:

http://www.infoplease.com...

By combining to deadly weapons together, it would just increase the murder rate. If the attacker runs out of bullets or has no bullets, he could just stab them in combination of whacking them with the butt of the gun causing more injuries.

With a flash suppressor, wouldn't that make it harder to find a person shooting the gun? Instead of seeing a flash and hearing a gun shot, you could only here it making it harder to locate the attacker. If you can actually see the flash, you can go in the area to apprehend the assailant or run away from his position.

A pistol grip and adjustable but-stock are optional to make the weapon more comfortable depending on the owners personal taste. Where as a flash suppressor is to hide/mask the flash produced by the gun. In a military situation that is an essential but for an every day citizen that could cause a problem. Not knowing where the shot is coming from is deadly because they wouldn't know where to run away from.

"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 play a numbers game with people's lives? People still get killed by them. According to your statistic 25% non-criminals get killed by them since 75% of the rest are criminals or assailants. It is justified in a self defense situation but when someone is not a criminal, why do they get to die?

"You completely forget about the point of owning a handgun. A handgun is for self defense. No one wants to defend themselves with a tiny .22Lr bullet. I want to defend myself with a 9mm, or a 40cal, or a 45cal. I want rounds that will protect me and stop someone from harming me. If you can shoot someone 6 times with a 9mm and they still won't drop, what do you expect me to do when some savage comes charging at me with a knife and I only have a .22? (.22s are basically 4x smaller than a 9mm)"

Well in the case of the cop shooting the person in the movie theater for texting, I don't think that was self defense. My question is that if you could stop the person with a smaller caliber by shooting them in the knees, stomach, and chest with multiple shots why do you have to kill the person? If you shoot them and they run away like how you mentioned that burglar running away after the women shot him, didn't the gun do its job? Self defense isn't always killing the person or making them drop dead.

"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. if we know this fact, what the hell is the point in banning "scary looking guns" and "high" capacity magazine devices when we have an alternative solution that can work just as well and doesn't prohibit law abiding citizens from certain magazines and firearms? And, why not better background checks too like you said? LOOK for ALTERNATIVES to stopping tragedies rather than taking peoples constitutional rights away."

Well if there was an effective ban, how can people who use drugs get those guns? Overall that is a good point. But there have been recent shootings by a white supremacist which killed three. Which is why guns should be down graded, to stop these people from killing innocent people.

"So explain, with the facts given about "scary assault weapons" high capacity magazines, and the cause for mass shootings, do you still stand with your previous opinion on gun control?"

I have changed it slightly, though I think if they aren't banned they should at least be downgraded so there are less deaths when people decide to shoot random people.
Debate Round No. 2
USN276

Pro

Sigh....

This is why I cannot bare to argue gun control with people who don't know U.S gun laws.

http://www.guncite.com...

It is 100% ILLEGAL for any gun store to sell fully automatic weapons to citizens, whether they are law abiding or not. You can only buy a fully automatic weapon if you have an NFA permit which is #1 not easy to get #2 expensive, then you can take the federal background check which takes a few months, then you are permited to own a fully automatic weapon. The Ak 47s you see in gun stores are NOT fully automatic. They were either made semi automatic or were imported from a European country and then converted to semi automatic. Besides, since 1986, there have been NO NEW fully automatic receivers made for civilians to purchase. You can only purchase fully automatic receivers BEFORE the 1986 ban (and there aren't many full autos left to buy) So incase you forgot, this debate IS NOT on fully automatic weapons.

"Semiautomatic rifles with a bayonet lug and flash suppressor make them even more dangerous." I have only found ONE article of a man being stabbed to death with a bayonet. Now tell me why someone can't simply duck tape a knife to a rifle and then go and stab someone? Not very difficult. Also, as in the police poll I explained to you before, majority of cops say an "assault weapons" ban would have no effect on crime. So, how could banning a "flash suppressor" affect crime? Tell me something. Why can't I have a simple bayonet lug and a muzzle device on the end of my rifle (which made up 3.7% of gun homicides last year) but average citizens are allowed to consume alcoholic beverages which lead to over 10,000 drunk driving deaths each year? And you're concerned about "bayonet lugs and flash suppressors"? In my Second Amendment debate (if you would care to discuss after this one, I can get more in depth as to how a ban on a muzzle device would be unconstitutional)

http://www.nbclosangeles.com...

"By combining to deadly weapons together, it would just increase the murder rate." incorrect. The previous 1994 "assault weapons" ban was already proven to be ineffective. The quote I will present below is from one of the huge proponents to the 1994 "assault weapons" ban.

Koper, 2004: Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation"s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.

Since the "assault weapons" ban was lifted in 2004, we now have the fewest number of homicides involving rifles in over 50 years. So actually, I already dismissed your argument with my first comment proving to you that the 2 worst mass shootings ever committed were done by rifles NOT classified as "assault weapons" but, why not go the extra mile and show you the comment from one big proponent to the 'assault weapons" ban

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

Above are statistics for homicides by weapon. (3.7% of homicides involved rifles last year by the way.)

"A pistol grip and adjustable but-stock are optional to make the weapon more comfortable depending on the owners personal taste. Where as a flash suppressor is to hide/mask the flash produced by the gun. In a military situation that is an essential but for an every day citizen that could cause a problem. Not knowing where the shot is coming from is deadly because they wouldn't know where to run away from." I see. So, let's make guns less comfortable for gun owners because a vertical grip somehow gives the rifle magical powers to kill more people. Should we make seats in cars out of wooden blocks that way drivers don't get to relaxed and distracted while driving? I'm sorry, but your arguments are just absurd. Basically you want to prohibited "good guns" so you can feel safer at night. Do you have any statistics that show a pistol grip and adjustable but-stock made a difference in how many people were killed in a mass shooting? Anders Brevik, killed 71 people (which is the record) with a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapon". He had no pistol grip, adjustable but-stock, flash suppressor, or bayonet lug, yet was able to kill more people than any other mass shooter in history. Do you have any comment on that?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"In a military situation that is an essential but for an every day citizen that could cause a problem. Not knowing where the shot is coming from is deadly because they wouldn't know where to run away from." what about a home defense situation? There are roughly 3.7 million burglaries per year. Your idea to protect people is by prohibiting pistol grip and but-stocks which can assist a home owner in a home invasion? Do you want to make all rifles 40 pounds that way shooters can't lift their guns up? Your idea for these regulations is laughable and preposterous. You want to prohibit "military features" when the pistol grip wasn't even patterned for the military? What can stop me from buying a pistol grip for airsoft guns, properly fixing it onto my rifle, and then going about?

http://www.bjs.gov...

I"Why play a numbers game with people's lives? People still get killed by them. According to your statistic 25% non-criminals get killed by them since 75% of the rest are criminals or assailants. It is justified in a self defense situation but when someone is not a criminal, why do they get to die?"

So you are telling me you would be ok with an all out ban on alcohol, and private motor vehicles? Is there a need for alcohol and cars? Why don't we just make people take buses and trains. If we did that #1 we would use up less fuel #2 there would be thousands of fewer traffic deaths per year #3 commutes could actually be faster because of no traffic.

"According to your statistic 25% non-criminals get killed by them since 75% of the rest are criminals or assailants." Correct. That means less than 1 innocent person per 100k is being murdered in the U.S by any type of weapon. Because less than 1 person out of every 100k, it is necessary to prohibit self defense ammo from good citizens which allows them to protect their families? I just don't understand. I can't comprehend why you think it is fair to step on the Second Amendment, and restrict good citizens from defending themselves. If you listen to what i am saying VERY FEW innocent people get killed by guns each year. Not only that, but take into consideration that just because someone was killed with a gun, doesn't mean they couldn't have been killed by say a knife.

Did you know that around 35% of households in America own at least one gun. Did you know 77% of justifiable homicides (where it is a life or death situation) involves firearms? if firearms are the ultimate deterrent against crime, why do you want to make it harder for good citizens to defend themselves?

http://cnsnews.com...

I am out of room now so I will continue what I was saying in the comment section.
SamStevens

Con

" I have only found ONE article of a man being stabbed to death with a bayonet. Now tell me why someone can't simply duck tape a knife to a rifle and then go and stab someone?"

Well, yes that is in the realm of possibilities. I am just saying is that combining a fixed knife with a gun is not good. If they run out of bullets, they can stab the person. If they don't have any bullets, they have a blunt object (but-stock) and a knife to inflict damage.

"This is why I cannot bare to argue gun control with people who don't know U.S gun laws."

Well I never really researched the topic, my comment was:

"I am more or less in the middle. The U.S. should limit the types of guns. They should ban assault and military grade guns as well as guns with a high capacity magazine. Only people how have permits and licenses should have a gun."

Basically remove military/assault guns as well as guns with a high magazine capacity.

" Why can't I have a simple bayonet lug and a muzzle device on the end of my rifle (which made up 3.7% of gun homicides last year) but average citizens are allowed to consume alcoholic beverages which lead to over 10,000 drunk driving deaths each year?"

Well in my opinion, alcohol should be banned. All it does is lead to crime like hit and runs, date crimes, and other violence. Also it can ruin relationships and make life difficult for family members. 3.7% is still a number of people dying in gun homicides regardless of what is used. It would be better if that was 0%.

" I see. So, let's make guns less comfortable for gun owners because a vertical grip somehow gives the rifle magical powers to kill more people."

Actually no, I said that a vertical grip and an adjustable but-stock can be added, it depends on personal taste. If the owner has some type of disability, a vertical stock can be added or adjusted as well as a but-stock.

A flash suppressor or bayonet make it more dangerous for obvious reasons, 1. it hides the flash making it harder to find the shooter and 2. it is adding another weapon to a gun that is not necessary.

" Should we make seats in cars out of wooden blocks that way drivers don't get to relaxed and distracted while driving?"

I don't know how comfortable seats distract drivers. A wooden seat with splinters would distract drivers.

"Anders Brevik, killed 71 people (which is the record) with a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapon". He had no pistol grip, adjustable but-stock, flash suppressor, or bayonet lug, yet was able to kill more people than any other mass shooter in history. Do you have any comment on that?"

Yes, I do have a comment on that. The gun that he used was basically a hunting gun. "The Mini-14 proved popular with small-game hunters, ranchers, law enforcement, security personnel and target shooters."[1] If it could take down small game, it should have no problem taking down humans.

He also trained for the attack in advance.

"Also in 2009 he visited Prague in an attempt to buy illegal weapons. He was unable to obtain a weapon there, and Breivik decided to obtain weapons through legal channels in Norway instead.[56] He obtained one semi-automatic 9 mm Glock 17 pistol legally by demonstrating his membership in a pistol club in the police application for a gun licence, and the semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14 rifle by possessing a hunting licence."[2]

He obtained the Ruger Mini-14 rifle by the means of a hunting license, it was meant to shoot small game. If he got it in a regular gun store, that would be a different story.

"Your idea to protect people is by prohibiting pistol grip and but-stocks which can assist a home owner in a home invasion?"

Actually I never said to ban a pistol grip or butt stock, they can be added or removed depending on the comfort level. I said bayonet and flash suppressor should be banned. A bayonet does not add to a comfort level as the owner does not hold the gun backwards nor does a flash suppressor.

"So you are telling me you would be ok with an all out ban on alcohol, and private motor vehicles? Is there a need for alcohol and cars? Why don't we just make people take buses and trains. If we did that #1 we would use up less fuel #2 there would be thousands of fewer traffic deaths per year #3 commutes could actually be faster because of no traffic."

To ban alcohol, yes. I see no need for it. It should be banned as all it does is cause violence and impairs a persons thinking ability. In a drink-in stupor, a slight misunderstanding can go into a full on fight.

To remove cars is a good idea but there is a need for cars at the moment. If we were to get rid of cars now, how would public transit support the public? People who live out in the country would have to walk for miles before reaching a town. Fewer deaths could be achieved by speed regulators in the cars engine, 20 mph. In order to use less fuel, they could be solar powered.

"Did you know that around 35% of households in America own at least one gun. Did you know 77% of justifiable homicides (where it is a life or death situation) involves firearms? if firearms are the ultimate deterrent against crime, why do you want to make it harder for good citizens to defend themselves?"

In a self defense situation, it is justified to kill. It is a problem when bad people get control of guns. Citizens could trade in a 9 mm for a Smith&Wesson model 500. That has the fire power to stop any one plus it should only be available to people that are mentally sane, a clean background check, license, permit, and training.

" I already told you before, it is hard enough to kill someone with a 9mm, why make it even harder by restricting citizens to only .22s which half less than a QUARTER of the power of a 9mm? Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Your limited knowledge of firearms and bullets prevents you from understating this."

Well instead of a smaller caliber, it should be the Smith&Wesson model 500 for good, mentally sane citizens with a full background check and sanity test.

"And chances are, that white supremacist was on psychiatric drugs"

Since he was a white supremacist, he was delusional and messed up in the head. He also had a history of owning illegal firearms. Which is why if guns should be available to the public, they should be down graded to prevent these knuckle heads from killing people while the more powerful guns( Smith&Wesson model 500 or even a 9 mm) should only be allowed to people who are mentally sane, with a clean background check, trained with the gun. Letting hate groups like the KKK have guns with the power to kill ( 9 mm or above) in hate groups only encourages violence.

I agree I have limited knowledge, I did not think my comment would turn into a debate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
USN276

Pro

"I am just saying is that combining a fixed knife with a gun is not good."

Yes, and neither does putting cup holders in a car turn out to be a good thing. if we didn't have cup holders in cars, believe it or not, a'lot of people would be saved on the road because individual drivers would not distract themselves. "If they don't have any bullets, they have a blunt object (but-stock) and a knife to inflict damage." AGAIN, what is going to stop them from properly welding or really duck taping a bayonet to a gun? There are over 5 million rifles in this country capable of being fit with a bayonet. Only one person was killed with a bayonet and that person could have simply just have been shot with the gun rather than stabbed.

"Well I never really researched the topic"

Exactly. This is my point. You don't know the law, meanwhile you feel you are capable of debating.

"They should ban assault and military grade guns as well as guns with a high capacity magazine." Who is talking about military grade? semi automatic rifles are not military grade weapons. Military grade is FULLY AUTOMATIC. The AR 15 and civilian Ak 47 are semi automatic therefore civilian rifles. STILL, you are proving my point you have no idea what you are talking about. And as a matter of fact, in a poll asked to law enforcement officers, the vast majority said that a ban on so called "assault weapons" (which is a ridicules term created by the media) and "high" capacity magazines would have no effect on crime what so ever. The 1994 AWB proves my point.

http://www.factcheck.org...
http://www.policeone.com...-
findings-on-officers-thoughts/

I don't want to discuss alcohol because it will go way off topic, but all I will say is rather than banning alcohol or ANYTHING, why not just look for alternative solutions? For example, in Japan, if you drunk drive, the police will revoke your license for LIFE. and it reduced drunk driving deaths SUBSTANTIALLY

"3.7% is still a number of people dying in gun homicides regardless of what is used. It would be better if that was 0%." Where is your proof that the 3.7% of homicides could not have been committed by a different gun? That's like wanting to ban just vodka to stop drunk driving. Aren't there other beverages capable of making you drunk? Not to mention, I even showed you before the vast majority of cops say a ban on "assault weapons" would have no positive effect, and the 2 worst mass shootings in the WORLD were NOT committed by "assault weapons" So with that evidence, how can you STILL conclude that the 2% of people killed by "assault weapons" could not have been killed by a different kind of firearm?

"1. it hides the flash making it harder to find the shooter and 2. it is adding another weapon to a gun that is not necessary" I have not been able to find any article relating to cops struggling to find a shooter because he had a flash suppressor. Out of the 5 million rifles with bayonet lugs, I was only able to find one story of a man stabbing someone to death with a bayonet when that man could have simply shot the person to death. The flash suppressor is there for looks. Without the flash suppressor, the rifle itself looks less attractive, and when it looks less attractive, people won't buy as many and it will actually hurt profit. A ban on these "evil weapons of the devil" can actually effect on the economy in a negative matter. In New York for example, Remington lost so many profits due to the NY "Safe" Act and were forced to move to Tennessee. They weren't able to produce the most popular sporting rifles in America in NY because the law (written by pin heads who don't have the slightest knowledge of firearms) prohibited the sale of AR 15 rifles.

With the seats thing, do you understand my point though? if you are willing to ban bayonet lugs and flash suppressors when there is no record of flash suppressing causing police to search for a suspect and only one rifle out of the 5 million rifles with bayonet lugs in America was used to stab someone, is it necessary to ban everything that makes things a little more convenient to save lives. Should there be a law that requires a sour proof shield between the front and back seats that way if kids are fighting, the driver won't be distracted?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Excellent, so you admit it. So if you know there are other firearms capable of killing the same amount of people, why are you just after "assault weapons"?

Also, Adam Lanza trained in advance as well. You are throwing in irrelevant knowledge.

Your wasting time typing this extra knowledge about how he got it. I know the whole story. It's irrelevant.

But I don't understand. You feel you have the superior authority to control your fellow citizens by telling them they can't drink alcoholic beverages because some people abuse alcohol? I just don't understand that?

"To remove cars is a good idea but there is a need for cars at the moment" Have you heard of a bus or a train? There are a'lot of people who don't drive cars in America. Especially in cities. So I don't understand how you can say people NEED cars if there are buses and trains which people take EVERY DAY in America.

Again, I have NO PROBLEM with tougher background checks. I genuinely believe that tougher background checks can lead to fewer firearms in the hands of citizen. I have no reason to debate that.

"Since he was a white supremacist, he was delusional and messed up in the head." In medical standard, a white supremacist would not be delusional and messed up in the head. (maybe messed up in the head or brainwashed) but chances are good, if he wasn't on psychiatric drugs, he would not have killed those people.

http://www.foodmatters.tv...
SamStevens

Con

"Yes, and neither does putting cup holders in a car turn out to be a good thing. if we didn't have cup holders in cars, believe it or not, a'lot of people would be saved on the road because individual drivers would not distract themselves."

I am all for removing distractions, it would make the road safer as people wouldn't text and drive, spill drinks on themselves and crash, etc.

"Exactly. This is my point. You don't know the law, meanwhile you feel you are capable of debating."

I never said I was capable and you challenged me to debate this. Being my 2nd debate, I did not know what I was getting myself into as my first debate wasn't really a debate. I also did not think my comment was going to get me in a 5 round debate so my limited knowledge should have been expected.

"I don't want to discuss alcohol because it will go way off topic, but all I will say is rather than banning alcohol or ANYTHING, why not just look for alternative solutions? For example, in Japan, if you drunk drive, the police will revoke your license for LIFE. and it reduced drunk driving deaths SUBSTANTIALLY"

That is a good solution but if you don't ban it, people can still drink and drive. If the police don't get them before they potentially crash, people can lose their life's.

"But I don't understand. You feel you have the superior authority to control your fellow citizens by telling them they can't drink alcoholic beverages because some people abuse alcohol? I just don't understand that?"

Actually, I don't feel like I have the superior authority. That is the government who possesses it.

"In medical standard, a white supremacist would not be delusional and messed up in the head. (maybe messed up in the head or brainwashed) but chances are good, if he wasn't on psychiatric drugs, he would not have killed those people."

Members of these hate groups take things to extremes. Even if he wasn't on drugs, he probably would have don something. When captured, he shouted " heil Hitler". That guy was going to do something sooner or later.

"Your wasting time typing this extra knowledge about how he got it. I know the whole story. It's irrelevant."

How am I supposed to know what you know?

"Have you heard of a bus or a train? There are a'lot of people who don't drive cars in America. Especially in cities. So I don't understand how you can say people NEED cars if there are buses and trains which people take EVERY DAY in America."

Yes, I have heard of a bus and train. So if we were to eliminate cars, public transit would have to readjust to the growing number of people using trains and buses. Some Chicago buses have a similar design to a passenger train, two pieces connected in the middle with a bendy part to hold more passengers. If we were to get rid of cars now, more buses would have to be made to hold a higher capacity. Also, side walks would have to be widened so people walking in congested down town areas don't have to walk in the street. That requires time.

"Also, Adam Lanza trained in advance as well. You are throwing in irrelevant knowledge."

Actually, if you train with a gun, your performance would be better than if you just give a person a gun who is completely new to them.

"Excellent, so you admit it. So if you know there are other firearms capable of killing the same amount of people, why are you just after "assault weapons"?"

I think is is better just to remove powerful guns(9 mm and above) from the general public and leave powerful pistols/rifles to people who don't belong to hate groups, who have a clean background check, a clean sanity test, and who completed training with the gun and who will only use it for self defense only. Not for recreational use.

I have revised my position due to debating, now I think a partial ban is best suited, banning guns 9 mm and above from the general public. Pea shooters should only be the guns available to the public so if gangs or hate groups get a hold of them, little damage will be done. Guns like assault weapons still have dangerous capabilities since assault means "make a physical attack on."

"Exactly. This is my point. You don't know the law, meanwhile you feel you are capable of debating."

Remember, I only have 1 debate, and that one was shabby. Plus I did not know what I was getting into due to my inexperience on this site in regards to debating and ignorance of assault weapons.
Debate Round No. 4
USN276

Pro

So you are implying that we ban anything that distracts people, is unnecessary, and is too dangerous? Where does the line begin for just enough dangerous or too dangerous? Your absolutely absurd. You have the ideals of a nanny state leader.

"That is a good solution but if you don't ban it, people can still drink and drive. If the police don't get them before they potentially crash, people can lose their life's." If you ban it and install heavy punishments for possession of it, people will be very afraid to drink and drive. You can't ban everything because it can be potentially dangerous. You should think more libertarian where you believe most things should be up to the individual person what he/she can have.

You don't known that he would have killed them anyway. People who do extreme irrational things need to have some of mental illness or are taking some sort of psychiatric drug before killing people.

http://www.wnd.com...

Look up Dr. Peter Breggin on psychiatric drugs if you want to learn more.

"How am I supposed to know what you know?"

It's not a matter of that I knew it, it was that it wasn't important to the debate and basically irrelevant.

A movement from cars to buses would be a slow process, however there would be more than enough time to adjust and allow more buses to be produced. Don't get too technical about it. You need to understand my point. There are a'lot of dangerous things in the world that kill far more people. Banning bayonet lugs and flash suppressers when there is no proof they truly assisted any criminal in a homicide case doesn't seem to make sense to me.

"Actually, if you train with a gun, your performance would be better than if you just give a person a gun who is completely new to them."

Yes, quite obvious. I'm just having trouble with what you replied to what I said with this. Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying.

"I think is is better just to remove powerful guns(9 mm and above) from the general public and leave powerful pistols/rifles to people who don't belong to hate groups, who have a clean background check, a clean sanity test, and who completed training with the gun and who will only use it for self defense only. Not for recreational use." I agreed with everything except why can a good citizen be allowed to shoot a gun at a range for recreational use? Anti gunners always talk about how there should be training with self defense weapons that way innocent casualties won't occur. (and technically I agree) so why can't citizens go to a gun range and shoot targets with rifles above 9mm.
SamStevens

Con

"So you are implying that we ban anything that distracts people, is unnecessary, and is too dangerous? "

Not every thing but activities that distract drivers( texting or talking on the phone) should be banned. They distract people's attention from the road, this can kill someone.

"You can't ban everything because it can be potentially dangerous."

Alcohol is dangerous either way. It damages your liver and other organs, it causes people to be in a stupor, and it plays apart in many car crashes.

"It's not a matter of that I knew it, it was that it wasn't important to the debate and basically irrelevant."

Actually, he got the gun from a hunting permit, it was a hunting gun. They are stronger than other guns since they are meant to take down animals so bringing him up was irrelevant.

" I agreed with everything except why can a good citizen be allowed to shoot a gun at a range for recreational use?"

Why do people always want to shoot real bullets? What satisfaction does it give the person to shoot real bullets at paper targets? Why not just do a paint ball match, less things could go wrong. Plus the injuries are less sever such as bruises. If they want to, they could shoot rubber bullets/pellets 9 mm and above.

" so why can't citizens go to a gun range and shoot targets with rifles above 9mm."

They can for training purposes with the gun( when they first get it). If they want to shoot they could just use a pea shooter, after all they are just shooting at paper targets or clay pigeons. They could shot with rubber bullets since that has less of a chance to kill some one.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
@ Dilara:

Yes, whatever weapons it takes to enforce the law, within reason(being that the police will not be firing military grade weapons, like bazookas, at shop lifters)
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Police should have the best type of guns possible. There's only one case of a polce officer doing something stuod with his gun that con named. There are more cases where police men save lives by having sick powerful weapons. Not all police men should be punished because of one guy.
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
Yes. Civil liberties should be left to the citizens. I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian. I have a few disagreements on foreign policy a little and their dismay of law enforcement, but overall, I think I am pretty libertarian.
Posted by SamStevens 3 years ago
SamStevens
A minimal state intervention in people's lives.
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
Do you know the gist of libertarianism is?
Posted by SamStevens 3 years ago
SamStevens
Ok
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
Your catching on.
Posted by SamStevens 3 years ago
SamStevens
True, but since an unhealthy diet is known to cause all sorts of trouble for your body, it is essentially their choice to have a heart attack. Especially people who, despite being warned about health complications, decide to eat unhealthy. A heart attack is their choice. And it is their life.
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
A healthy diet is their own choice. You can recommend for people to eat healthy, but you can't call the police and tell them someone you know is eating unhealthy and should be fined.
Posted by SamStevens 3 years ago
SamStevens
I think 100 people is a pretty small sample size. Well, a person with a heart attack is living their life. They caused the heart attack. A healthy diet and exercise would prevent a heart attack. This excludes people born with a heart condition.

"if someone wants to smoke pot, go ahead."

If some one wants to eat unhealthy and have a heart attack, I should let them. They were most likely warn by their doctor but it is their life. It is not my concern.
No votes have been placed for this debate.