The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 3/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,082 times Debate No: 51109
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)




I will give the opponents permission to make the first argument.


First of all, for the purpose of this debate, I think it is important to actually define "assault weapons." The term, despite the several controversies surrounding it, is generally used politically and legally to describe semi-automatic firearms with a high number of detachable magazines and possibly one or two safety features. They share, according to the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), several cosmetic features with their fully automatic counterparts.

Now, to ban assault weapons as per the way I have defined it would be to ban altogether shotguns, rifles and most types of pistols and handguns. This leaves a small portion of the latter, which I feel can be removed as well once the illegal sale of guns has been cut down.

As this debate progresses, I seek to establish certain facts that will make the job of the voters easier. These include:

A) Assault Weapons are NOT used primarily or even secondarily for self-defence
B) Assault weapons being legalised for self defence can lead to a society that is brutal, chaotic and vigilante in nature
C) The legalisation of assault weapons has an adverse impact on homicide rates

I look forward to an open and healthy debate, with each voter acting fairly and impartially.
Debate Round No. 1


Now your definition of an "assault weapon" really doesn't make much sense. You can get "high capacity" magazines for almost any gun. Obviously you don't know how firearms work. A magazine manufacturer could make a thousand magazine for any gun he wants. but if "assault weapons" are so dangerous, why is it that they 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?

"Assault Weapons are NOT used primarily or even secondarily for self-defense" something you should be aware of is that tactical professionals say AR 15 rifles are the best rifles for home defense due to the fact they are compact and conformable.

So I mentioned before about alcohol. Why should we ban the most popular sporting rifles in America (which make up less than 300 deaths per year) from mentally sane law abiding citizens, but not ban alcohol when there is over 10,000 drunk driving deaths per year.


I completely agree with your points about the limited practicality of assault weapons. In fact, they are actually inaccurate, easily visible and bulky. According to a 2005 Gallup poll ( ), Americans use guns mainly for protection, target shooting and hunting. None of these activities actually require assault weapons. Less than two percent of America's gun stock could be unambiguously classified as assault weapons. Now, given this very limited practicality, why even INVOLVE the risk?

It's interesting, you bring up the AR-15. The AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle loosely based on the military M-16. The AR-15, a weapon that according to the FBI Handbook on gun regulations, will "fire automatically merely by the manipulation of the selector or the removal of the disconnector." The AR-15, a weapon that is capable of carrying a 100- round drum magazine and of shooting between 50 and 60 bullets per minute.

"Why should we ban the most popular sporting rifles in America from mentally sane law abiding citizens," you say. Have you heard of a man named James Holmes? I'm guessing you have, but nevertheless, James Eagan Holmes is the admitted perpetrator of a mass shooting that killed twelve people at a Century movie theater in Aurora ( ). Now, Holmes just happened to use a LEGALLY purchased .223 caliber semi-automatic assault weapon. This weapon is commonly known as the AR-15, which you call the "best rifles for for home defence."

James Holmes' shooting in Aurora lasted for less than a minute and a half. Twenty-five police officers had arrived at the scene within two minutes. Within six minutes, over 200 officers swarmed the theater. Amidst all this, Holmes used "America's most popular sporting rifle" to kill twelve people and injure fifty-eight others. Moreover, this is despite the fact that his AR-15 jammed in the middle of the shooting. We're actually lucky more people weren't killed.

As of now, Holmes has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. I recall Pro saying something about "mentally sane law abiding citizens." And, by the way, insanity as opposed to temporary insanity means that he is a long term sufferer of a mental disease. Which probably means that he legally purchased his AR-15 and his Glock 22 Pistol while allegedly suffering from this mental disease. It's scary how easy it is to become a legal gun owner.

This concludes my statement for round 2.
Debate Round No. 2


"In fact, they are actually inaccurate, easily visible and bulky." I'm sorry, but that just isn't true at all. AR 15 rifles are quite accurate. The 5.56 round it fires (which non assault weapons can also fire) is a very accurate bullet. "assault weapons" aren't impractical and ineffective for self defense, but there not more dangerous either. "None of these activities actually require assault weapons" Again, you are incorrect. AR 15s are made for self defense/sport shooting. I mentioned before that firearm professionals say AR 15s are the best weapons for home defense, meanwhile you contradict my statement without any facts and say "none of these activities require "assault weapons" I recommend you watch what you say in a debate. Listening carefully is key in a discussion.

Now there may not be many gun owners that own A 15s, however they are the most popular rifle out of any other rifles in the country. "fire automatically merely by the manipulation of the selector or the removal of the disconnector." Now I love when people say "you can easily convert an AR 15 to full auto." Not as easy as you think. Only the best gun smiths can properly convert a rifle to fully automatic. Fun fact for you; in I believe in 1980 something, there was a meeting in Los Angeles with LAPD and California congressmen and women. The chief of police discussed the illicit firearms found in Los Angeles. He said out of the 50,000 firearms recovered by the police, not a SINGLE firearm was converted to fully automatic. (By the way, AR 15s were around in the 80s and were common.) So no, VERY few AR 15s have been converted to full auto. Adam Lanza tried to do it and failed at it. My father was a cop. Not ONE single weapon he found was a fully automatic convert.

"The AR-15, a weapon that is capable of carrying a 100- round drum magazine and of shooting between 50 and 60 bullets per minute." A Ruger mini 14 (which is not an "assault weapon") is also capable of holding a 100 round beta magazine like other hundreds of rifles NOT classified as "assault weapons" Any semi automatic rifle has the capability of firing 50-60 rounds per minute accurately.

"Have you heard of a man named James Holmes?" Oh, you mean the man who was on 3 different psychiatric drugs before he went on his mass shooting? Do you mean the guy who took psychiatric drugs before his mass shooting like over 90% of all other mass shooters we have had? Well, yes, of course I do. Fun fact for you: Doctors and psychiatrists are saying psychiatric drugs are the link behind mass shootings and not necessarily the mental illnesses which the "medications" are meant to treat. So was James Holmes a criminal before the shooting? No. Was he a government test subject before the shooting? yes, he was.

Anders Brevik used a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapon" and was able to kill well over 6 times the number of people Holmes killed with his "evil AR 15 that is able to blow up trains and airplanes" (as some people actually believe) His AR 15 jammed due to his 100 round beta magazine. I thought I should share that.

So while I gave you sufficient proof an "assault weapons" ban would have no effect on crime, the total number of people killed in a mass shooting, and the mere fact that 90% of law enforcement said a ban would have no effect on crime, you still ignore these truths and continue to try and make an argument for a ban on specific rifles because of their "fearful look".

Please read my comments in regards to psychiatric drugs and mass shootings. I will add a few links at the bottom for that.


You attack my statement on the inaccuracy, visibility and bulkiness on the grounds that the AR-15 (which you seem very attached to, by the way) is, in fact, accurate, while failing to understand that the statement itself still holds true for a majority of assault weapons. By questioning the statement on minor technical grounds, you completely miss the sentiment, so here it is anyway: The function of assault weapons in societies is dispensable.

Again, you refute my other statement, which was "None of these three activities ( self-defence, target shooting and hunting) actually REQUIRE assault weapons." Your problem with this is that AR-15's are the supposedly the best weapons for home defence. This may or may not be true (I'm going to presume it is), but that in no way means that you "require" them, in any sense of the word. They are replaceable, and if there could be a positive impact from replacing them and bringing down the homicide rates to some degree, then they should, in fact, be replaced.

You also seem to disagree with what the FBI Handbook on Gun Regulations has to say about AR-15's when you rubbish the claim regarding the conversion of AR-15's to full auto. Now, I'm of the opinion that the FBI knows what they're talking about. I may be wrong.

Whether James Holmes committed the mass shootings as a result of the mental illnesses he was supposed to be suffering from or whether he carried them out due to psychiatric medication is irrelevant. The point I am trying to make, which you seem to have missed, is that the shootings probably would not have taken place if he hadn't had legal access to the AR-15. Simple.

You raise repeatedly some fairly important points about the limited use of assault weapons in mass shootings, saying that they are barely used at all. However, contrary to this, here's a fairly interesting survey: . Now, this survey, despite being around a year old, states that 20 assault weapons out of a total of 143 firearms were recovered from perpetrators of mass shootings taken into consideration. These figures are in no way overwhelming, but are irrefutably valid. Assault weapons are used in mass shootings to a considerable degree.

Also, it is undeniable that that assault weapons are a firearm of choice among criminals. In a study of young adult purchases of handguns in California buyers with minor criminal histories were twice as likely to purchase automatic pistols as those with no criminal history. This was even higher at five times as likely for those who had been charged with two or more serious violent offences (Page 17 of ). This goes to show, though you will no doubt find a way to disagree, that assault weapons are often purchased by those looking to use them for violent ends.

I would also like to base my debate on the principle that a single life saved makes the ban worthwhile. Even so, if you take the lowest estimate of assault-weapon caused deaths to be true (1%), it means that 90-100 lives a year could be saved by an assault weapons ban, while the highest (7%) means 630-700 lives. I ask you, is even the possibility of saving 630-700 lives your definition of "no effect?" Is that how a little a human life means to you, and is that how little it should mean to a country?
Debate Round No. 3


If simple semi automatic sporting rifles which use 120 year old technology is not necessary for a society which has a right to bear arms, then can you explain to me how alcohol should fit in with society? You haven't even been able to prove to me how how an "assault weapons" ban would benefit our society. When you want to ban a particular thing, you should be able to explain how banning this particular thing will save lives. You have not been able to do that.

They are not required for hunting. Just as alcoholic beverages are not required for a party. So, is the option to prohibit these 2 things? I highly doubt you agree with with banning alcohol. If we start stripping people of " the non necessities" what will we become? We don't need violent video games to play videos games, so is the option to ban M Rated video games? "They are replaceable, and if there could be a positive impact from replacing them and bringing down the homicide rates to some degree, then they should, in fact, be replaced." You are not listening. In order to make such a controversial claim, you need facts to support it. I told you that less than 2% of homicides are committed by "assault weapons" each year (which are some of the most commonly found firearms around, yet they STILL only make up less than 2% of gun homicides) the 2 worst mass shootings in the ENTIRE WORLD were not committed by "assault weapons" (which dismisses the claim that "assault weapons" have the ability to kill more people thus ALSO proving that any homicide committed by a rifle classified as an "assault weapon" can be done with a different kind of weapon) (I hope you are paying attention here) and in the past TEN YEARS, less than 70 people have been killed by 'assault weapons" in mass shootings. With these facts, how can you prove that an "assault weapons" ban is capable of decreasing the already excessively low homicide rate committed by these types of firearms? 90% of law enforcement even say it themselves that a ban on "assault weapons" would have no positive effect on crime rates.

"you also seem to disagree with what the FBI Handbook on Gun Regulations has to say about AR-15's when you rubbish the claim regarding the conversion of AR-15's to full auto. Now, I'm of the opinion that the FBI knows what they're talking about. I may be wrong." The FBI did NOT mention anything about being "easy to convert to full auto" And you clearly ignored the fact that out of the 50,000 illicit firearms the LAPD recovered, not a SINGLE ONE was converted to fully automatic. Did you know you can remove the computer which controls the speed of a car? Not to mention BATF regulations require that semi-automatic rifles be manufactured so that they cannot accept parts or modifications that would allow them to be capable of fully automatic fire.

No, I'm not missing your point and I am dumbfounded by the fact that over 90% of mass shooters were on psychiatric drugs means nothing to you. It isn't a matter of the fact that Holmes had access to an AR 15. What matters is that he was mentally insane and had access to guns IN GENERAL. james Holmes could have use a totally different rifle and killed just as many, if not more people. Anders Brevik, the Norway mass shooter proves my point. He used a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapons" and hold the record for the worst mass shooting in the WORLD.

2 things wrong: 1, didn't say many mass shootings are not committed by "assault weapons" 2. You are proving NOTHING because AGAIN, the worst mass shooting in HISTORY was NOT committed by an "assault weapon". The worst mass shooting in the U.S was not committed by an 'assault weapon" and even the SECOND worst mass shooting in the world was NOT committed by a rifle with "assault weapon" features. I've seen that article before. You haven't presented me any arguments I haven't seen in the past. So i will make it clear, I did NOT mention anything about "assault weapons" not being used in mass shootings.

Actually there are some major flaws, and before everyone votes, please pay extra attention here. The reason why 'assault weapons" are the popular choice of firearms for gangs and legal gun owners is because of the mere fact that their cosmetic looks makes them look very attractive. There is a reason why the AR 15 is the most popular sporting rifle in America. Its looks attract buyers. Semi automatic rifles with the "hunting look" are in the past. AR 15s are the new trend because they are sexy looking rifles.

"In a study of young adult purchases of handguns in California buyers with minor criminal histories were twice as likely to purchase automatic pistols as those with no criminal history. " There is a problem here. You cannot legally purchase ANY fully automatic weapon in ANY gun store in the country (unless you are talking about semi automatic). Incase you didn't know, most 99% of handguns these days are semi automatic so I don't really believe your "statistic" that criminals have a higher tendency to purchase handguns that are semi automatic because I know no one who would buy a single action revolver these days.

Also, .01% of gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. (half of those offenses don't even involve a gun threatening someone) Your argument doesn't prove a ban on "assault weapons" would save lives. I certainly agree with making tougher background checks however.

"I would also like to base my debate on the principle that a single life saved makes the ban worthwhile." So your saying that 4 million people should give up their guns just to save one life (which could be a gang member since 75% of gun homicide victims are criminals in the first place due to their high risk lifestyles) So if you are willing to ban the most popular sporting rifles in America, (which make up less than 2% of gun homicides or less than 200 homicides) are you willing to prohibit alcohol to save thousands of lives from drunk drivers?

That concludes my argument for round 4. I will assure that if my opponent replies to this, I will continue the debate in the comment section here.


OK, since this is my last chance to put my case forward, I'm going to attempt to list and highlight all my arguments in this round:

1. An assault weapons ban would save lives
First of all, I am in no way pretending that the homicide rates will plummet the moment assault weapons are banned. That doesn't mean, though, that placing the ban will not have a notable impact. Over 70% of the USA's homicides are carried out by firearms. In 2012, 8855 were killed by firearms as opposed to 2785 by all other types of weapons and methods ( Gun control has to start somewhere, and assault weapons are well suited for that.

According to some estimates (it is uncertain which of the varying figures are correct), assault weapons are involved in 7% of homicides. In the above FBI source, that would be around 814 human lives taken by assault weapons. Of course, due to the uncertain and incoherent nature of these surveys, the real number may be a great deal lower. If the popular estimates of 2-3% are to be taken as true, then that itself means around 300 lives. 300 lives. The possibility of saving human lives in this magnitude itself outweighs the importance of assault weapons in society. A survey I cited earlier stated that 20 assault weapons out of a total of 143 firearms were recovered from the perpetrators of mass shootings.

Put simply, assault weapons are designed for assault. Their proliferation should be prohibited by law.

2. The function of assault weapons in society is entirely dispensable
The three legal uses of firearms are self-defense, hunting and target shooting. In all three fields, there are a large number of guns NOT classified as assault weapons that are as well, if not better suited to the purposes in question. For example, Kahr PM9's and Glock 19's are considered by experts to be some of the best guns for home defense. Colt Frontier Six Shooter's and Winchester 1873's have few legal rivals in the field of hunting.

Now, I do understand that certain assault weapons may be preferred by several law abiding citizens. But honestly, if there is a possibility of saving lives of the aforementioned magnitude, then it is but a small sacrifice. If giving up your gun of choice means that over at least 300 innocent people could continue to live, then is it really not worth it? Considering that assault weapons have such limited practicality, is it in any way fair to continue pretending that they should stay legal only so we can have a greater range of choices when we purchase guns?

3. The previous assault weapons ban was effective
The Justice Department released a study which categorically stated that the AWB of 1994 was solely responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun homicides, this too while holding all other factors equal. This same study also found that "Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.” The percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired. 37% of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the 1994 federal ban expired. Here's the source, in case anyone wishes to carry out a fact check:

Now, if a ban which was criticised by even the pro-gun lobby as being to weak could achieve this kind of change, imagine the effect of an updated version which stronger laws. "'Assault weapons' ban would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT," my opponent once said. Huh.

4. An assault weapons ban would help root out domestic terror
Legalizing high-power weaponry only forces public safety agencies to carry out more monitoring of civilian activity. The FBI is charged with “preventing homegrown attacks before they are hatched.” This would naturally involve extensive and comprehensive research into the lives of all legal gun owners, which is especially unfortunate in a day and age when extensions of this kind of monitoring are such a big issue.

Also, as I read on a very interesting article on a similar issue (, which pointed out how an assault weapons ban would allow agencies to go after all assault weapon owners instead of worrying about the intent of those who had purchased them.

This same article mentioned the issue of assault weapons being involved in a high amount of killings of police officers. In fact, as I mentioned before, the expiry of the AWB lead to a consistent increase in the number of police officers dying from gunfire (2009: 49 < 2010: 61 < 2011: 68). 2011 marks the only year for a while in which the leading cause of on duty police officer deaths was gunfire and not traffic fatalities. If we continue to arm both criminals and officers with this level of high power weaponry, we're genuinely asking for instability, chaos and anarchy.


Throughout this debate, my opponent and I have agreed on the fact that there are no real negative effects of an assault weapons ban. His case is that there is no positive effect, mine is that there is. I've tried my very best to convey the latter to you. Now, if, despite that, you still are of the opinion that an assault weapons ban will have "No positive effect," then you should go ahead and vote Pro. But honestly, how, despite all this evidence, can that still seem a valid statement?

An assault weapons ban is NOT an attempt to limit American gun rights. It is a last firm stand, one of the many required measures we can take to reduce the blatant, ugly criminal activity that fills the streets. A measure against crime, homicide, terror and fear.

Choose, today, as you vote, the country which you want to see.

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
Below is continuation of the debate. These are my rebuttals and other arguments which counter my opponent.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
I would also like to ask my previous question before. Why do you feel it necessary to ban semi automatic sporting rifles with "scary cosmetic features" (which kill less than 200 people a year, 75% being criminals,) but not want to ban alcohol which kills over 10,000 INNOCENT people each year? When you read, start from the bottom comment and read up.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
Not sure if I said it to you, or someone else, but the reason they are being found more often is because AR 15 and Ak type rifles are popular looking rifles. Wooden stocked rifles are in the past. The Rugar mini 14 "look" is one of those "last year fad" things. AR 15s are the most popular rifles in America because of their looks. People aren't buying wooden stocked rifles (that are semi automatic) because they want a nicer looking rifle. You need to understand business and capitalism to get the gist of what I am saying.

Now your "domestic terror" argument isn't a good one. The Boston bombers for example had a fully auto
rifles which weren't purchased in America. Terrorists will find ways to get weapons with other means necessary.

"assault weapons" kill cops because "assault weapons are rifles. Your honestly going to tell me that if the rifles didn't have collapsable stocks and pistol grips, they would be less deadly? lol. C'mon. Please don't waste my time. I shoot guns. Cops shoot guns. We both agree you have no idea what you are talking about and are making ridicules arguments. Hypothetically speaking, if these guns were more dangerous, why do you still feel the need to FORCE law abiding citizens to tell them not to own certain kinds of rifles?

Also, I would like t conclude the opponent has made a false accusation. An "assault weapon" ban would lead to MORE rights being taken away succeeding the ban which is a negative effect. I also would like to say the opponents idea that the 2nd Amendment was made to protect the right to hunt and defense against criminals is incorrect and misguided. The 2nd Amendment was made to protect against tyrannical governments oppressing the citizens rights. if my opponent cares to debate that topic in a different tread, i would be more than happy to.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
Here comes the whole "I understand people like "assault weapons, but is it worth having them legal if we can save even just 1 life" argument. Can you tell me why you are a proponent for the "assault weapons" ban (which involves banning rifles that make up less than 200 deaths per year, 75% being criminals) but are not ok with all out banning alcohol from everyone to reduce drunk driving fatalities be even just a few hundred a year? I'm sorry pal, but you can't run along and prohibit everything you don't like. It doesn't work that way. You said clearly that "if an 'assault weapons" ban would save even one life, that is fine with me" Well, pit bulls don't actually kill a'lot of people each year, however about 5 people are killed by them each year. So would you be an advocate for also banning pit bulls? (along with banning alcohol?)

And you said "300 innocent people" "innocent" is incorrect, you knew anything about criminology, you would be informed that most homicide victims are criminals in the first place. Before you say, "well, they are people too, and no one deserves to die" can you tell me why "assault weapons" must be prohibited from lawful citizens if gang bangers and street thugs are shooting each other up over drugs and territory? Meanwhile over 10,000 INNOCENT civilians are being killed by drunk drivers.

This poll above me asked law enforcement officers if an "assault weapons" ban would have any positive effect on crime. You can read the results yourself.

Now, I love your comment with "assault weapons" have increased 37% in Virginia" and that whole comment. (continued)
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
The AR 15 was developed because civilians liked the cosmetic looks of the fully automatic M16 assault rifle. Later on, the creator of Armalite decided to make a semi automatic version of the M16 rifle for sporting, hunting, and home defense. (which are the 3 legal uses you mentioned for a firearm) You may call a simple semi automatic sporting rifle indispensable because it makes you feel uncomfortable and scared at night, but really, it has no difference from a regular semi automatic sporting rifle. Anders Brevik, the mass shooter who holds the record for the most kills in a shooting killed 71 people with a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapon" Still, it baffles me that you still and try and argue against the fact.

I'd also like to point out left out details in your argument for "proof the 1994 "assault weapons" ban worked" #1. There is no claim it reduced the homicide rate. The claim is that the 'assault weapons" ban reduced the homicides for "assault weapons" #2 Homicide rates were already on a decline. #3. With "assault weapons" being legal to this day, we are at our lowest homicide rate in over 50 years.

This is from Christopher Koper, one of the prominent advocates for the 1994. 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." (continued on)
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
Ok, these are my rebuttals and counter arguments to your last argument.

Now, your opinion is that you actually believe a ban on rifles with certain "scary" cosmetic features will actually save lives. You also gave a false statistic on the number of people killed by "assault weapons" and the percentage of people killed by 'assault weapons". The FBI recorded that in 2011, 324 homicides were committed by rifles IN GENERAL. If you do the math, you will find that makes up 3.7% of gun homicides in general, or, less than 2% of homicides in general. How could 7% of gun homicides involve "assault weapons" if 3.7% of gun homicides involve rifles? You aren't making any sense. This argument has been debunked.

Also, you consistently make the argument that because "assault weapon" make up 2-3% (which is about less than 200 people per year)(also, 75% of those homicide victims being criminals since the majority of homicide victims are criminals due to their high risk lifestyles) of firearm homicides, that they should be prohibited. Can you explain why "assault weapons" should be prohibited but not alcohol when 10,000 INNOCENT lives are killed each year from intoxicated drivers? Can you explain to me what legitimate use alcohol has for the public?

Now you make the claim that "assault weapons" are made for 'assault" Can you explain how they are made for "assault" when Colt manufactured their AR 15 rifle for sporting/defense? "assault" is a verb. The term "assault weapon" was created by the liberal media to install fear into people by making them believe common semi automatic sporting rifles like the AR 15 and semi automatic Ak 47s were actually fully automatic assault rifles. The term "assault rifle" came from the nazis when they developed the Sturmgewehr. The definition of an "assault rifle" a rifle with selective fire capabilities. The AR 15 (which the AR stands for Armalite rifle) is SEMI AUTOMATIC, therefore, it isn't an "assault rifle" (continued)
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
If you are talking to me liberallogic, I don't have a NEED for an AR 15 just as people don't have a NEED for alcohol. Why do we need to explain to people why we NEED certain things. People have wants and likings towards things. Let them be. Don't tell other people what they can or can't have. Especially law abiding citizens who are mentally sane.
Posted by nato1111 2 years ago
USN276 will win i gaurentee it!
Posted by 2 years ago
Why do you need one? Not want, need.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
Well, I'll assure you my data doesn't come from the NRA. I do like the NRA, but they don't give reliable data very often so I just wanted to let you know my data is legitimate. If you do not believe me, you can check out the data
No votes have been placed for this debate.