The Instigator
dinokiller
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sam_Lowry
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

We should prevent automatic weapons from legalizing.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Sam_Lowry
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,639 times Debate No: 13918
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (4)

 

dinokiller

Pro

My point is that weapons like AK and M16 should never be legalized and sold to citizens. Con has to provide arguments why automatic weapons should be legalized while I provide why it shouldnt be.

This is just an intro round, arguments are posted at round 2.
Sam_Lowry

Con

Pro argues that automatic weapons should be illegal. I'm going to assume that by automatic weapon, he means a weapon that can fire more than one cartridge with one trigger pull. I'm assuming pro is talking about legislation in the United States. Since fully automatic weapons are not prohibited by federal law in the United States, I'm going to assume that the premise of "should remain illegal" and "should be banned" are meant to be used interchangeable by Pro, unless he is making a state specific argument. I will begin my actual arguments in round two.
Debate Round No. 1
dinokiller

Pro

Well, the point is to start at round 2 anyway.

My point in this debate is that fully automatic weapons should NEVER be sold to citizens. Assault rifles that are limited to semi-automatic doesnt count as full automatic.

Why it shouldn't be legalized and sold to civilians:
1. Its very dangerous to others, even bypassing the dangers of a pistol.

2. By selling them, more options opens up for criminals.

2 Simple arguments, right?
Sam_Lowry

Con

Pro's arguments amount to bare assertions. He has provided no evidence supporting the concept that fully automatic weapons are inherently more dangerous than semi automatic weapons, and has not even explained what he means by "more dangerous". More dangerous how? Easier to kill people? More likely to cause an accident? He has given no support for the notion that modern criminals prefer fully automatic weapons, and heavily implies that fully automatic weapons are a useful tool for the modern criminal.

The notion of banning fully automatic weapons is within itself a useless exorcise on several counts. On one count, semi automatic weapons are often very easily converted to fully automatic with little modification. If there was a significant demand for fully automatic weapons, the black market would surely be able to supply it regardless of laws or regulations, as the equipment required for such modifications is widely available and less restricted than the precursors and equipment needed manufacturing of illegal drugs. An example of such an effort would be the instance of the Polish resistance reverse engineered and reproduced common British Sten sub machine guns during WWII. Medical equipment and other seemingly innocuous parts often served as the base for such designs, making clandestine manufacturing even more difficult to trace. With the current widespread availability of extremely cheap metalworking tools, there is little to nothing stopping an individual or organization from mass producing such weapons on a large scale today.

Why then do we not see an epidemic of fully automatic weapons related violence or clandestine production? Because there is no demand. The modern criminal is not a resistance fighter. A criminal would prefer something cheap, simple, and easily concealable, and preferably disposable. Hence, the majority of gun crimes are committed using pistols, shotguns or revolvers, rather than semi or fully automatic rifles, which are unwieldy and difficult to conceal. In fact, there is little evidence that a fully automatic weapon is even inherently more deadly or effective than it's semi automatic counterpart. Take for example the North Hollywood Shootout, in which two men armed with illegally converted automatic rifles (see above paragraphs as to how easy this is to do this) loaded with armor piercing ammunition, fully outfitted in body armor, and mentally augmented with barbiturates. Despite firing over 1000 rounds of ammunition, only 18 people were injured, with the only fatalities being the perpetrators. Despite typical Hollywood presentations of fully automatic weapons, they are not particularly effective at direct engagement when compared to semi automatic weapons. High rates of fire combined with recoil often make sustained automatic fire inaccurate and wasteful of ammunition, as well as generating far more attention than a semi automatic weapon.

Keep in mind, there are roughly 175,000 fully automatic firearms in circulation among civilians, and roughly 240,000 in circulation total registered with the BATF. Since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, there have only been two murders committed using legally owned fully automatic weapons. One of these murders was committed by a police officer.

http://www.guncite.com...
http://www.cruffler.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.homegunsmith.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dinokiller

Pro

"Pro's arguments amount to bare assertions. He has provided no evidence supporting the concept that fully automatic weapons are inherently more dangerous than semi automatic weapons, and has not even explained what he means by "more dangerous". More dangerous how? Easier to kill people? More likely to cause an accident? He has given no support for the notion that modern criminals prefer fully automatic weapons, and heavily implies that fully automatic weapons are a useful tool for the modern criminal."

Are you now insulting me? Even an idiot knows that a fully automatic weapon is more dangerous then a semi automatic, the fire rate of fully auto weapons are usually higher then the hybrid semi-automatic. Higher rate of fire means more bullets gets fired means more chance that someone gets hit by a bullet. Prove my logic wrong.

"The notion of banning fully automatic weapons is within itself a useless exorcise on several counts. On one count, semi automatic weapons are often very easily converted to fully automatic with little modification. If there was a significant demand for fully automatic weapons, the black market would surely be able to supply it regardless of laws or regulations, as the equipment required for such modifications is widely available and less restricted than the precursors and equipment needed manufacturing of illegal drugs. An example of such an effort would be the instance of the Polish resistance reverse engineered and reproduced common British Sten sub machine guns during WWII. Medical equipment and other seemingly innocuous parts often served as the base for such designs, making clandestine manufacturing even more difficult to trace. With the current widespread availability of extremely cheap metalworking tools, there is little to nothing stopping an individual or organization from mass producing such weapons on a large scale today."

This argument here is to fight against the banning of automatic weapons, yet that law is ALREADY applied. We are here to debate that we should PREVENT it from LEGALIZING. (Look debate title)

"Why then do we not see an epidemic of fully automatic weapons related violence or clandestine production? Because there is no demand. The modern criminal is not a resistance fighter. A criminal would prefer something cheap, simple, and easily concealable, and preferably disposable. Hence, the majority of gun crimes are committed using pistols, shotguns or revolvers, rather than semi or fully automatic rifles, which are unwieldy and difficult to conceal. In fact, there is little evidence that a fully automatic weapon is even inherently more deadly or effective than it's semi automatic counterpart. Take for example the North Hollywood Shootout, in which two men armed with illegally converted automatic rifles (see above paragraphs as to how easy this is to do this) loaded with armor piercing ammunition, fully outfitted in body armor, and mentally augmented with barbiturates. Despite firing over 1000 rounds of ammunition, only 18 people were injured, with the only fatalities being the perpetrators. Despite typical Hollywood presentations of fully automatic weapons, they are not particularly effective at direct engagement when compared to semi automatic weapons. High rates of fire combined with recoil often make sustained automatic fire inaccurate and wasteful of ammunition, as well as generating far more attention than a semi automatic weapon."

You are neglecting my point here, that people favours pistols over automatic weapons doesnt mean that automatic weapons arent very dangerous.
Also, at that incident, you are forgetting 3 points here.
1. There were more police officers then perpetetrators, yet they took stand.
2. The perpetrators had body armors and heavy weapons, forcing the SWAT Team to fight the criminals.
3. 18 people were wounded in the firefight, so it proves that automatic weapons ARE dangerous.

If fully automatic weapons were legalized, what wouldve happened then? Everyone comes robbing a bank with an Automatic weapon while the police officers cant do anything against it.

"Keep in mind, there are roughly 175,000 fully automatic firearms in circulation among civilians, and roughly 240,000 in circulation total registered with the BATF. Since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, there have only been two murders committed using legally owned fully automatic weapons. One of these murders was committed by a police officer."

Keep in mind, that the procedures for it were also cautious. Only a small percent of the population has access to it.
Also, most of the time, getting an automatic weapon is DENIED by officers.

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

Con

Pro argues that every idiot knows that fully automatic weapons are more dangerous than semi automatic weapons, and that any idiot knows this. I would contend that an argumentum ad populum, and furthermore one that appeals to idiots, and should therefore be disregarded. Pro then asserts that higher rate of fire means that there is a higher chance of being hit by a bullet. Again, this is a bare assertion, one that is not supported by evidence. Even if we are to grant pro that being able to shoot more quickly rather than more accurately somehow increases the inherent lethality of a firearm, there is still no evidence that a fully automatic rifle would be particularly useful for the typical criminal. Again, the overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with pistols and revolvers due to the ability to easily conceal such weapons. Even granting pro the very generous assumption that fully automatic weapons are more lethal, there is no reason to believe that criminals would sacrifice portability for an increase in "lethality". Assuming that Pro agrees that rifles are far more "lethal" than pistols, he would be hard pressed to explain away the fact that rifles are one of the least used types of firearms used in crime.

Pro argues that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. This is false. As far as I am aware, the only states specifically banning fully automatic weapons are Michigan, California,, New York and New Jersey. Most, if not all other states allow for the ownership of such weapons. Fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF before 1986 are perfectly legal throughout most of the United States, and require only a $200 tax stamp and the appropriate paperwork to transfer.

Pro argues that fully automatic weapons are dangerous. I do not dispute this. However, he has not been able to present any evidence or any type of scale as to how one measures the "lethality" of a firearm. Is an underpowered fully automatic .22 more "lethal" than a .308 rifle? Pro asserts that if fully automatic weapons were legal, everyone would buy one and rob a bank. Again, he provides no evidence of this, and it is particularly suspect because fully automatic weapons are already legal. Furthermore, even if they were not legal, they are easily converted from semi automatic weapons with minimal technical skills. If there was a demand for fully automatic weapons in the bank robbing sector as pro asserts, pro has not yet provided a reason why the black market has not provided such goods like it does with illegal drugs. Clearly we are not engaged in a War on Fully Automatic Weapons, so any hobby machinist should be able to churn these weapons out for all those who wish to acquire them, legal or not. And yet the incidence of fully automatic weapons being used in crime effectively approaches zero, despite them being both legal and easily converted from existing weapons.

Lastly, Pro argues that only a small percent of the population has access to fully automatic weapons. This is not the case. If you do not have a criminal record, you are generally permitted to own a fully automatic weapon if your state allows them.
Debate Round No. 3
dinokiller

Pro

"Pro argues that every idiot knows that fully automatic weapons are more dangerous than semi automatic weapons, and that any idiot knows this. I would contend that an argumentum ad populum, and furthermore one that appeals to idiots, and should therefore be disregarded. Pro then asserts that higher rate of fire means that there is a higher chance of being hit by a bullet. Again, this is a bare assertion, one that is not supported by evidence. Even if we are to grant pro that being able to shoot more quickly rather than more accurately somehow increases the inherent lethality of a firearm, there is still no evidence that a fully automatic rifle would be particularly useful for the typical criminal. Again, the overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with pistols and revolvers due to the ability to easily conceal such weapons. Even granting pro the very generous assumption that fully automatic weapons are more lethal, there is no reason to believe that criminals would sacrifice portability for an increase in "lethality". Assuming that Pro agrees that rifles are far more "lethal" than pistols, he would be hard pressed to explain away the fact that rifles are one of the least used types of firearms used in crime."

I thought you already knew this, but i ask you now this. Why was fully automatic weapons made illegal in the first place? Of course the people knew that fully automatic weapons were more dangerous then semi automatic.
You said i have no proof that the chance of being hit by fully automatic weapons is high, but look back at the Hollywood Shootout. 2 Armed robbers managed to injure 18 persons and it was done by fully automatic weapons.
Also, i dont have to press away any fact. Sure fully automatic firearms arent used as much as small semi auto firearms, but that doesn't mean that the fully automatic weapons arent dangerous.
The bullet size is big and the stopping power of automatic weapons like assault rifles are high, adding an automatic firing mode and you have a dangerous weapon, why do you think the army uses rifles and not pistols in firefight?

"Pro argues that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. This is false. As far as I am aware, the only states specifically banning fully automatic weapons are Michigan, California,, New York and New Jersey. Most, if not all other states allow for the ownership of such weapons. Fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF before 1986 are perfectly legal throughout most of the United States, and require only a $200 tax stamp and the appropriate paperwork to transfer."

Ok, i misread it, but not all states legalizes them though. My debate here is to debate about preventing them from legalizing, not trying to make it illegal again in states where its legal.

Pro argues that fully automatic weapons are dangerous. I do not dispute this. However, he has not been able to present any evidence or any type of scale as to how one measures the "lethality" of a firearm. Is an underpowered fully automatic .22 more "lethal" than a .308 rifle? Pro asserts that if fully automatic weapons were legal, everyone would buy one and rob a bank. Again, he provides no evidence of this, and it is particularly suspect because fully automatic weapons are already legal. Furthermore, even if they were not legal, they are easily converted from semi automatic weapons with minimal technical skills. If there was a demand for fully automatic weapons in the bank robbing sector as pro asserts, pro has not yet provided a reason why the black market has not provided such goods like it does with illegal drugs. Clearly we are not engaged in a War on Fully Automatic Weapons, so any hobby machinist should be able to churn these weapons out for all those who wish to acquire them, legal or not. And yet the incidence of fully automatic weapons being used in crime effectively approaches zero, despite them being both legal and easily converted from existing weapons.

First of all, why are u picking 2 different weapons to compare? For the lethality, u should be comparing the same weapons, but on different firing mode. Lets say a M4 is fired on full automatic mode and then on semi automatic. The power doesnt change as the bullets stays the same, but the rate of fire changes, making it more lethal as more bullets are send flying everywhere. Changing weapons to fully automatic isnt legal.
Yes, i know that there are no high demands for it, but that doesnt mean that it isnt dangerous as i just said in previous round.
Also, the bank robbing was just a example of things that could happen. The Hollywood shootout is another one of those examples where fully automatic weapons were used in crime.

"Lastly, Pro argues that only a small percent of the population has access to fully automatic weapons. This is not the case. If you do not have a criminal record, you are generally permitted to own a fully automatic weapon if your state allows them."

And here comes my same answer. It is if the state ALLOWS it, but i just said most of the requests are DENIED.

I got all the prove in the world showing that fully automatic weapons are dangerous so they shouldn't remove the ban.
Vote Pro la.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sam_Lowry

Con

Pro asks why automatic weapons were "made illegal in the first place". The irony is that in an appealing to that authority, the answer clearly favors my position. Fully automatic weapons were never made illegal by the vast majority of the states, which would seem to imply the opposite of what he argues.

Pro ironically tries to argue that the Hollywood Shootout was a good example of why fully automatic weapons are particularly more dangerous than semi automatic weapons. What he does not seem to understand is that despite the fact that the perpetrators were doped up, wearing full body armor, and managed to shoot off over 1600 rounds of ammunition, they did not manage to kill a single person. Compared to any number of notorious shootings involving only low powered handgun, the results were pathetic. The ability to conceal a weapon and the element of surprise are far more important factors when it comes to the lethality of an encounter than the rate of fire of a weapon. Consider the fact that the hit percentage of the perpetrators was less than 0.017% per shot. This is in direct contrast to what pro asserts: that a higher rate of fire means a higher chance of hiring the target. Indeed, the police only fired roughly 600 shots in the same encounter, but hit the perpetrators more than twenty times. In other words, despite being only armed with semi automatic weapons, the police were able to hit their targets are a rate of almost double that of the perpetrators armed with fully automatic weapons.

"Also, I don't have to press away any fact. Sure fully automatic firearms aren't used as much as small semi auto firearms, but that doesn't mean that the fully automatic weapons aren't dangerous."

Pro continues to imply that I am asserting that fully automatic weapons are not dangerous. I have already dismissed this. In fact, I had previously challenged pro as to how he can measure "lethality", so that I may challenge his claims empirically rather than being forced to dissect dogmatic assertions. Of course, it's to late now, seeing as this is the last round.

"Yes, I know that there are no high demands for it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't dangerous as I just said in previous round."

Pro effectively admits that criminals do not want fully automatic weapons. I commend him in his reversal of position.

"And here comes my same answer. It is if the state ALLOWS it, but I just said most of the requests are DENIED."

Pro has not backed up this assertion up with any source, or explained the reason for the request denials. If the denials were issued based on legitimate paperwork or legal concerns, there I don't see how this is relevant. Below is listing of a large number of legally available fully automatic weapons and a FAQ regarding their transfer. Hopefully voters will be able to discern hyperbole from reality, as pro has not offered any factual or empirical data in support of his position.

http://www.autoweapons.com...
http://iawca.org...
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Lol, u didnt understand me, i said i cant vote because i dont live in US -.-
Posted by Sam_Lowry 6 years ago
Sam_Lowry
You don't have any votes because you're arguments were horrible. You didn't even acknowledge that fully automatics were generally legal until halfway through the debate. There have literally been less than three incidents involving legal fully automatic weapons and only two deaths since 1934 (one of which was caused by a LEO). You have literally not given a single reason as to how more restrictions on fully automatic weapons can reduce crime, violence, or anything. Fully automatic weapons are legal for virtually any non criminal who wants one, and yet there is literally no violence associated with these weapons. Are you seriously trying to argue that increasing the restrictions will result in a less than zero people dieing from legal fully automatic weapons?

You're most convincing argument was "BUT FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE DANGEROUS!!!", and by most convincing, I mean it was pretty much the only thing that resembled an argument.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Thats the problem :O i dont have any votes since i dont live in US.
Posted by Sam_Lowry 6 years ago
Sam_Lowry
Feel free to dispute any of the points I voted for myself on. I'd be willing to do another debate as to how they are obviously justified.
Posted by Sam_Lowry 6 years ago
Sam_Lowry
I voted for myself because I clearly won. There is no rule against voting for yourself. If you think you deserve to win then feel free to vote for yourself, but no one will take you seriously.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Ehh, even so if i fail, HE VOTED FOR HISSELF. ****
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
"Pro argues that automatic weapons should be illegal."

No, the resolution clearly states that he is arguing that automatic weapons should not be an authority.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Man i feel bad about this...
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Oh ****
Posted by tornshoe92 6 years ago
tornshoe92
If you were actually reading your own link you probably would have noticed that it was later approved by the Senate and Reagan.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Sam_Lowry 6 years ago
Sam_Lowry
dinokillerSam_LowryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by home_of_the_brave 6 years ago
home_of_the_brave
dinokillerSam_LowryTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tornshoe92 6 years ago
tornshoe92
dinokillerSam_LowryTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
dinokillerSam_LowryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05