The Instigator
USN276
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Strycora
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

"assault weapons" should NOT b banned

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 3 votes the winner is...
USN276
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 58650
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

USN276

Pro

I was reading that you said you wanted to ban "assault weapons" so I would like to challenge you to a debate proving a ban on "assault weapons" is absolutely pointless.

The definition of an 'assault weapon" is a firearm with a detachable magazine that has at least ONE of the following features: pistol grip, flash hider, adjustable buttstock, and a bayonet lug.

May I remind the opponent that there has been only about 2 instances where someone murdered someone with a bayonet in the past 5 years, and there is no instance or proof where a flash suppressor made it harder to fight a criminal.

Please choose to accept this debate so I can change your mind on the subject.
Strycora

Con

Seeing that you challenged me to this debate out of the blue, I don't feel like I have to prove or persuade you of anything. Please present your arguments first, as you hold the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 1
USN276

Pro

Ok, here are my arguments as to why "assault weapons" should not be banned. These are the big three arguments;

FBI recorded data shows that about 3.7% of firearm homicides were committed by rifles in GENERAL. As we know, not all rifles are "assault weapons" so even though 3.7% is low, chances are the number of gun homicides committed by "assault weapons" is even lower. Possibly even 2%. Now a common argument that maybe you will make is "well, then a ban on these guns will prevent that 2% of deaths." That is completely false. If the number of homicides committed by 'assault weapons" is that low already, don't you think those homicides could have just been committed by a different kind of gun?

The worst mass shooting in the entire WORLD was NOT committed by a rifle classified as an "assault weapon" The Oslo shooting committed by Anders Brevik resulted in 71 deaths. This is the highest record ever. Again, the weapon used was NOT an "assault weapon."

In the past ten years, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings. The way I found the data was by taking these 2 links below. I went through every mass shooting from 2004 to 2014 in the United States, researched each one on which firearm was used for the shootings, and found a total of about 60 deaths involving "assault weapons." These are all the mass shootings committed by "assault weapons" and the number of deaths in the United States since 2004:

Newtown, CT, Adam Lanza: 26

Aurora, CO, James Holmes-12

Omaha, NE Robert Hawkins-8

Crandon, WI, Tyler Peterson-6

Carson City, NV, Eduardo Sencion- 4

Now typical arguments for a ban on "assault weapons" would be "you don't need them" or "you can just use a handgun or a regular rifle for sport or self defense. So, would it be fair to say you don't need a sports car or a giant pick up truck to drive around? What I want to understand is why there needs to be a blanket ban on something because others say you don't need a particular object. People don't always have to show a NEED for something. People want to defend themselves and sport shoot with these sporting rifles. It shouldn't be other peoples concern. AR 15 rifles are one of the most popular firearms on the market. People like the look of the rifles and want to buy them. I find it absurd you believe rifles like that should be banned when less than 3.7% of gun homicides are committed by "assault weapons" the worst mass shooting in the WORLD was not committed by one, and less than 60 people were killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings.

To conclude. Just because a gun is black and scary, doesn't mean it is more dangerous. The term "assault weapon" was a made up word by the media to scare people into thinking AR 15s are more dangerous, when in fact they perform exactly the same as any other semi auto rifle. The word is a scare tactic to make people think these sporting rifles are evil.

http://gizmodo.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...(Americas)

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

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

Con, please make your arguments.
Strycora

Con

Strycora forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
USN276

Pro

Con has conceded. I'd like to first state I apologize for the pathetic typo in the title. I can't believe I did that and didn't notice.

To conclude my arguments, I just want to say that even though some things are more dangerous or a little more dangerous (and in this case, "assault weapons" are NOT a little more dangerous, they perform the same as any other rifle) that most things shouldn't be banned from good mentally sane citizens. People should respect other peoples passions and instead of banning stuff from good people, look for alternative solutions to prevent problems.
Strycora

Con

Pro argues that because firearms that are not assault rifles have been the tools of the majority of homicides, assault rifles are not more deadly than other firearms. However, the assault rifle was designed with a specific purpose in mind: mid range infantry combat.

Assault rifles are more dangerous than many other firearms because they are often capable of selective fire and because they have attachments to increase their ammo capacity, rate of fire, and overall deadliness.

I acknowledge that shooting for sport is quite popular and I believe that it is valid to say that, in a controlled environment such as a licensed shooting range, assault rifles are OK.

I believe that an entity that wants to own an assault rifle should have to be a shooting range.

There is no reason for individuals to own assault rifles, because they can attend shooting ranges and sporting events to shoot them. Personal possession of assault rifles is dangerous because they are military grade weapons that were developed for combat, and they are able to kill multiple individuals quickly because of their often automatic firing capabilities and dangerous attachments.

That the statistical number of homicides using assault rifles is low does not tell us how powerful they are relative to other guns. If armed with an assault rifle, an individual will be able to cause more damage in a shooting than if he were armed with a rifle without attachments, or incapable of selective fire. My evidence is the fact that assault rifles are successful in military combat, and their development by the Germans in WWII was emulated by many other nations.
Debate Round No. 3
USN276

Pro

"Pro argues that because firearms that are not assault rifles have been the tools of the majority of homicides, assault rifles are not more deadly than other firearms. However, the assault rifle was designed with a specific purpose in mind: mid range infantry combat."

#1 I proved they aren't more dangerous because I showed you the worst mass shooting ever was not committed by an "assault weapon", and 90% of law enforcement say an AWB will have no positive effect.

#2 Con has ignored what we are discussing. I actually clearly gave the definition of an "assault weapon" There is actually a difference between an assault rifle, and an "assault weapon" (which is a term made up by the media). assault rifles are fully automatic firearms. "assault weapon" (which are semi automatic sporting rifles, but were coined the term "assault weapons" by the media because they had the same cosmetic look of real assault rifles, when in fact, they do not function as such) To make it clear, assault rifles and so called "assault weapons" are two very different things. AR 15s are specifically made for civilian use. Basically, the AR 15 was the first so called "assault weapon" made. The word "assault" was given to the name because when you hear the word "assault", you think military or bad. This was a scare tactic by the media.

"Assault rifles are more dangerous than many other firearms because they are often capable of selective fire and because they have attachments to increase their ammo capacity, rate of fire, and overall deadliness."

My apologizes for not stating in the intro that an 'assault weapon" is semi automatic ONLY. Full auto rifles are basically illegal unless you have a very special permit which few people have. Full autos are NOT what we are discussing.

"There is no reason for individuals to own assault rifles, because they can attend shooting ranges and sporting events to shoot them." Con disregards the fact that the 2nd Amendment clearly says "the right to keep and bare arms shall NOT be infringed" If you are law abiding and mentally sane, you should not be prohibited from any firearm.

But right now, we are wasting time because we are both using two different definitions. I am discussing semi automatic rifles with "assault weapon" features and you are outright arguing about fully automatic weapons. Full auto weapons have not been the heat of discussion. The recent gun control efforts were legislation that would ban semi automatic rifles with so called "assault weapon" features. I am arguing that it is absurd and will have virtually NO positive effect on crime.

"That the statistical number of homicides using assault rifles is low does not tell us how powerful they are relative to other guns." You have a serious problem with ignoring what I say. I added in my argument that the worst mass shooting in the WORLD was not committed by an "assault weapon". I also stated that over 90% of law enforcement say a ban on "assault weapons" will have no positive effect.

Now, even though I refuted the argument that "assault weapons" are more dangerous, let's just say hypothetically they are a little more dangerous. Where does the line get drawn between just enough dangerous, and too dangerous?

Con, please make your arguments.
Strycora

Con

Oh yeah well I'm not even tripping about semi-autos. Thanks for the info about semi-auto rifles not being assault rifles. You have converted me.
Debate Round No. 4
USN276

Pro

Well, this is partly the reason why they made up the term, "assault weapons" because it makes people think full autos are being discussed, and then they support the ban on "assault weapons" because they think they are full autos when they are not. it's a very stupid term.
Strycora

Con

In conclusion, semi-autos should not be banned, but full autos and dangerous attachments (i.e. grenade launchers) should, except for licensed sporting facilities that commit to controlling the environment.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
#1, tell me why that should be. I just proved to you that citizens having these rifles will have no negative effect on crime. I even forget to mention in my argument but over 90% of law enforcement even say an "assault weapons" ban WONT WORK and that they shouldn't be prohibited. You're still have this false idea that "assault weapons" are more dangerous. They are just semi auto sporting rifles (normally black) Is it the black part that scares you? Why does a gun looking scary draw the line between just enough dangerous, and too dangerous?

#2. that contradicts the second Amendment. It clearly states "the right to KEEP and BARE arms shall not be infringed"

http://www.policeone.com...
Posted by Strycora 2 years ago
Strycora
Hmm... I don't think that they should be banned for sporting events. Shooting ranges can have them, but not individuals.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Please Strycora. Tell me now you don't think these rifles should be banned.
Posted by Strycora 2 years ago
Strycora
It's whatever man. Onward!
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Also, i apologize for the huge typo in the title. I was typing fast late at night.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
USN276StrycoraTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff + concession
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
USN276StrycoraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Mray56 2 years ago
Mray56
USN276StrycoraTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited 2nd round. Con didn't provide any sources to back up his brief arguments. Cons conclusion had nothing to do with the resolution. If anything, it was a concession.