The Instigator
paulbrevik
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
someone123456789
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

We should ban assault weapons

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: 6/18/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 874 times Debate No: 34870
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

paulbrevik

Con

I would like to hear from someone who supports the banning of assault weapons, to see what points they bring to the debate. I am opposed to such a ban, as these weapons differ from hunting rifles solely in appearance.
someone123456789

Pro

In 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized the Washington region for three weeks by firing bullets at innocent people in parking lots and at gas stations, ultimately killing 10 people and wounding three others. They used a Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle, one many variants of America's most popular assault weapon, the AR-15.
In 2006, Kyle Aaron Huff used a Bushmaster when he opened fire at a post-rave party in Seattle, killing six before committing suicide. In 2007, Tyler Peterson used an AR-15 to kill six people at a homecoming party in Crandon, Wis. In 2012, a gunman opened fire at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., killing 12 people and injuring 58 others. Police say James Holmes used a Smith & Wesson version of the AR-15 that was equipped with a 100-round drum magazine. And in December, Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster XM-15 in his massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, killing 20 children and six adults.
Debate Round No. 1
paulbrevik

Con

I can name many mass shootings that did not occur with AR type rifles. Including, but not limited to, the 2011 Norway Attacks, many of the post office shootings, Columbine, the Sikh temple shooting, the list goes on. Relatively few of these mass shootings occur with so called "assault weapons", and as for overall crime, only about 1% of crime takes place with them. Also, not a single actual study has shown that the 1994 assault weapons ban had any effect on crime. There is simply nothing that distinguishes an AR-15 from a Ruger Mini 14, for example, (which is specifically exempted in Feinsteins bill) other than appearance.
someone123456789

Pro

someone123456789 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
paulbrevik

Con

If my opponent intends on forfeiting this debate, I would like to know If I have convinced him that "assault weapon" is a meaningless term.
someone123456789

Pro

The governor did not pull the list of weapons he proposes to ban out of the air. Instead, he took an existing list that is currently subject to extra regulations under state law. That list was created in 1989 and is similar to the list of weapons banned by the federal government from 1994-2004. (The effort in Congress to restore that ban appears to have stalled.) The governor's bill would also ban weapons that contain two or more military-style characteristics.

Critics complain that those characteristics are cosmetic " that they make the guns look scary but don't mean they inherently fire more rapidly or more accurately than semi-automatic handguns or some kinds of hunting and sporting rifles that are not part of the proposed ban. Indeed, the kinds of weapons in question are not fully automatic; that is, a gunman would have to pull the trigger each time he wants to fire, rather than firing a burst by holding the trigger down. Automatic weapons are already highly regulated and have been since the 1930s. And in general, the limiting factor for how quickly a semi-automatic rifle can fire is the same as it is for a handgun " how fast the shooter can pull the trigger.Yet, such weapons show up again and again in mass shootings. According to Mother Jones magazine, which has cataloged every mass shooting in the United States since 1982, about a quarter of all mass shooters had assault weapons, and more than half had assault weapons, high capacity magazines, or both.
Debate Round No. 3
paulbrevik

Con

The assault weapons ban of 1994 had no effect of crime, and as for magazines, they are a box with a spring in it. Very easy to make and very hard to regulate
someone123456789

Pro

someone123456789 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
paulbrevik

Con

I maintain that banning "assault weapons" will have no effect in crime, that the prohibited features are purely cosmetic, and that they are already used in a tiny minority of crimes.
someone123456789

Pro

someone123456789 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
"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.

AR 15s are sporting/home defense rifles. They are NOT assault rifles. (FYI, AR stands for Armalite rifle) 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?

So explain to me, with those facts, why should "assault weapons" be banned?
Posted by Rhett_Butler 4 years ago
Rhett_Butler
Additionally;
"In 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized the Washington region for three weeks by firing bullets at innocent people in parking lots and at gas stations, ultimately killing 10 people and wounding three others. They used a Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle, one many variants of America's most popular assault weapon, the AR-15."

This was during the height of the assault weapons ban, which spanned from '94 to '04. You inadvertently shot yourself in the foot here because Muhammad and Malvo used a banned gun. Also, this AR-15 wasn't necessary for their line of killing. Muhammad and Malvo were staking out for "sniper attacks." They could have easily used a Remington 700 in .223 OR a longer range 22-250 to accomplish the same exact task with more precision as well as an optional extension of the magazine that they could have done themselves. As a matter of fact, I feel that their chance of getting away with murder would have been higher had they utilized a long-range bolt action rifle.

I really need to start debating gun control...
Posted by Rhett_Butler 4 years ago
Rhett_Butler
Just to be a bit of a prick, Mr. Someone, Hitler actually conceived the term "Assault rifle" because he liked the MP44 rifle so much that he found the term "Sturmgewehr" to be most fitting. "Storm rifle" or "assault rifle" was what came of it. Assault rifles must be capable of selective fire in order to be classified as such.

The term "assault weapon" was a spin-off of this term, and was defined in the 1990's by liberal politicians wanting to strip them from the protection of the second amendment, and shortly thereafter proceeded to attempt to restrict handguns, bolt action rifles, the semi automatic rifles that had been worked around the ban. Needless to say, this ploy backfired on them, as in 2004 the AWB was allowed to expire because it was a completely stupid and inherently useless policy in the first place, protecting no-one from crime.

As far as the collective society is concerned, an AR-15 or WASR-10 style rifle in the united states, being semi-automatic, is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip, modular functionality, flash suppressor, and the ability to accept a bayonet. If you want to give up your right to own one, then you have no obligation to buy one. This isn't pop culture telling you to go out and buy one to be cool. It's just another tool that you can use if you want it. There is no reason to take that right away from other citizens because you don't want one.

Considering their use in crime: A few spree killers who could have used pistols or shotguns instead, and a few utilized by the Mexican drug cartels. The Mexican drug cartels have the wealth to produce their own guns, and acquire their guns from governments, so even that is out the window.

Finally, the assault rifle is used in fewer crimes than other weapons. Want to know why? They're big, visible, and unwieldy force multipliers. They aren't much use if you run around with them, which is what criminals need to do. Most criminals would rather live than die..
Posted by someone123456789 4 years ago
someone123456789
Its called ASSULT WEAPON so basically it kills.
Posted by ufcryan 4 years ago
ufcryan
Hey I'm not a part of this debate, but can anyone tell me exactly what makes an assault weapon more deadly then any other firearm?
No votes have been placed for this debate.