The Instigator
brad1999
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tsume
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The United states will ban Assault Rifles.

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: 5/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 75197
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

brad1999

Pro

Round 1- Acceptance

Round 2- Arguments

Round 3- Rebuttals and last points
tsume

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
brad1999

Pro

C1. A ban would save lives.


Put simply assault weapons are designed for assault, therefore their proliferation should be prohibited in law. To put things into the general context of gun crime within the United States every year 17,000 people are killed, 70 percent of them with guns and nearly 20,000 people commit suicide by shooting themselves (1]. Murder by gunfire particularly affects children, in total well over a million Americans have died in this manner and 80 people continue to be shot in the states every day. So some form of gun control is necessary and a ban on assault weapons is a good starting point.

Out of 62 mass murders since 1982 almost half the weapons used, 67 out of 142, were semi-automatic handguns and more than 30 were assault weapons.[2] The period of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 with the exception of 1999, the year of the Columbine massacre (which notably involved a semi-automatic produced before the ban), was also a peaceful period in terms of numbers of mass shootings.[3] While assault weapons are responsible for a relatively small amount of total gun deaths in the USA that is not a good reason for not banning them; any life saved is worthwhile. Taking the low estimate of 1% of deaths from assault weapons that still means 90-100 people a year while the high 7% [4]means 630-700 lives that could be saved.

C2. Banning assault weapons increases liberty and security.

1. Many who are pro guns argue that it would be illegitimate for assault weapons to be banned while the police have them. Police forces, however, are going to be much more likely, and able to give them up when a ban is in place. The police don’t want to be involved in an arms race with criminals to have the biggest guns; just look at the British police force where there is little gun crime and few shootings of police officers it is not felt that there is the need to have police armed with more than a taser or even truncheon. Put simply a ban on assault weapons can help reverse the arms race between police and criminals.

2.Civil liberties would also be enhanced as law enforcement agencies would not need to devote so many resources into monitoring assault weapons purchases and those who have done the purchasing. Instead they would be able to simply target all assault weapons purchases as needing immediate attention,

3.Finally we must remember that this ban enhances the highest liberty at all; life. Today as Justice Breyer says “gun possession presents a greater risk of taking innocent lives” than not having a gun.

Sources

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

http://www.iop.harvard.edu...

tsume

Con

You make many good points, and indeed, assault weapons were meant for military use-- but what difference does it make if a murderer uses a gun over a knife or a sword. In this event, he'll most likely choose a gun; but he only does this because it's easier. He can still kill the same amount of people with a non-firearm alternative. It is easy to discern that your Telegraph source has liberal bias. You're also advocating the ban of assault weapons; yet in your debate, your statistics show that handgun deaths outnumbered the amount of deaths related to assault weapons. Also, when you cite the 20,000 people that commit suicide via shooting themselves, this has no connection to firearms. If firearms were banned, do you think that those 20,000 people wouldn't have killed themselves? No, they would've had an alternative. There always is. They just happened to pick the gun. Banning assault weapons does not increase liberty, and it does not increase security. Eliminating Second Amendment rights will reduce liberty, not increase it. And even if assault weapons are banned, criminals are easily able to buy weapons via underground markets. It would put police forces at a significant disadvantage. Gun ownership in homes also supports lower crime rates, as criminals are less motivated to invade homes due to the fear of being injured in the process. Without that fear, they would be completely free to rob people. You also say that civil liberties would be enhanced, but basis for this is that law enforcement agencies are given less stress; not the people themselves. Gun possession decreases crime rate, and is a powerful deterrent. Simply putting a ban on assault weapons for public is bad, and foolish, but for police forces too? That is idiotic, and would put police forces at the biggest disadvantage they will ever face. Not only does gun ownership discourage crime, it is also a factor in defense. Nations know that there are gun owners all over the U.S., which would make an invasion, however unlikely, extremely hard to carry out, thanks to the sheer militia force of the people.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, I am going to explain my part of the story.
With increased gun ownership, crime is often decreased significantly, thanks to the powerful deterrent. Detroit, in particular noticed stunning decreases in crime rates, with 37% fewer robberies in 2014 than in 2013. The Chief of Police, James Craig, said this was thanks to increasing gun ownership in Detroit, a city notorious for high crime rates. Many people believe that the purpose of a firearm "is to kill" but it's real objective is to defend. The myth that gun ownership in homes increases domestic violence is not true. A research project conducted by James Wright and Peter Rossi, for the U.S. Department of Justice shows that gun ownership is possibly the most effective deterrent to crime. The two professors questioned about 1,800 felons in prison. 81% of these criminals agreed that the smart criminal will try to find out if a person is armed before commencing a crime, 74% said that burglars usually avoided occupied homes, because of fear of being shot, and 57% of felons felt that the average criminal feared being shot by armed citizens more than the police.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://people.duke.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
brad1999

Pro

Rebuttals

My opponet said that 'more gun ownership reduces crime'

no it doesn't 'A new study published in the American Journal of Public Health on Thursday has found a “robust” relationship between rates of gun ownership and firearm homicide, challenging the National Rifle Association’s assertion that more registered guns equal fewer firearm-related deaths.

However, the study noted that while gun ownership is a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates, the correlation did not necessarily mean that higher ownership directly caused more gun-related killings.

The researchers looked at firearm homicide data in all 50 states between 1981 and 2010 and found that for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership, a state's firearm homicide rate jumped by 0.9 percent.'



Sources

http://america.aljazeera.com...

tsume

Con

In this debate, Pro supports the ban of Assault weapons; however, he cites evidence mainly pointing to handguns, not Assault weapons in particular.

1. A ban will not stop or slow assault weapon and gun crimes in general

He says that Assault weapons in particular cause 9-100 deaths a year, and because he knows this is a very, very low number, he attempts to cite that "every life saved counts". True, noone should have to die. But the fact that criminals can still easily get their hands on weapons even after a ban, means that a ban is pointless, and no lives would truly be saved.

2. Suicides are completely unrelated to guns

The analogy that gun ownership affects suicide rates is absurd. If a person who commits suicide does not have a gun in their possession, they would simply find a different way to commit suicide. The absence of guns does not affect suicides.

3. No pro-gun advocates say that it would be illegitimate for assault weapons to be banned while the police have them.

I have never heard this statement, ever. What pro-gun people argue is that the 2nd amendment says that the people have the right to bear arms, in order to balance out a tryrannical government and give the people an opportunity to rise up against that government. They don't protest the police having assault weapons (assault rifles, submachine guns, etc), they protest the government taking away a constitutional right, leaving law-abiding citizens vulnerable not only to criminals, but the government. The people protest the over militarization of the government--, this is, armored vehicles, military vehicles, tanks, and all that, which could indicate a police state. They don't protest the police having small arms, they protest them having military equipment.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by tsume 2 years ago
tsume
Okay guys, this guy plagiarized. I didn't even realize...
http://idebate.org...
I'm actually extremely angry because of this. I thought I was ACTUALLY debating somebody, then I looked at one of his other debates and found out what a fake he is.
Posted by tsume 2 years ago
tsume
@Johnnykelly I already did
Posted by tsume 2 years ago
tsume
@Johnnykelly I already did
Posted by Jonnykelly 2 years ago
Jonnykelly
Con could just destroy Pro's argument based on that horrible resolution.
No votes have been placed for this debate.