The Instigator
USN276
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

"assault weapons" should NOT be 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 2 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,612 times Debate No: 51923
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (45)
Votes (2)

 

USN276

Pro

You may make the first argument
Romanii

Con

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate.

My argument is rather simple:

P1) If something is unecessary and dangerous, it should be made illegal

P2) Assault weapons are both dangerous and illegal

Conclusion: Assault weapons should be made illegal



Defense of Premise I

If something has the potential to harm people, and it doesn't serve any significant beneficial purpose to balance it out, then it would obviously be a logical choice to remove that "something" and take away any possibility of harm by banning it.

Anyhow, I do not believe this premise will be contested by my opponent, though if he wishes to do so, I would be happy to engage him on it.



Defense of Premise II

1) Assault Weapons are Dangerous

This seems rather obvious, as anyone who has been shot by even a weak gun can contest, and the numerous mass-shootings that have been happening recently also go to exemplify this fact.


2) Assault Weapons are Unnecessary

The main purpose of having gun rights in the United States is to provide a means for self defense. However, assault weapons were originally designed for use in the military; generally civilians are not involved in the kinds of scuffles that the military is involved in; thus, civilians do not need to have assault weapons for self-defense, as any old hand gun will suffice for their purposes.



With both of the premises shown to be true, the conclusion logically follows that assault weapons should be banned.

If my case seems a bit thread-bare, it's because it is. It is basically common sense.
Hopefully there will be more to say in the following rounds with Pro's arguments, rebuttals, and defenses.

Your turn, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
USN276

Pro

Ok, in your very first statement, I can easily point out a contradiction. You say "if something is unnecessary and dangerous, it should be made illegal" meanwhile, I am more than certain you will drink alcohol or you do drink alcohol right now. How can assume that? Because over 2/3 of Americans drink alcohol occasionally. Chances are good, you will drink alcohol. Now answer this, obviously alcohol is not a necessity and is dangerous because it claims over 10,000 lives each year (according to the CDC) Tell me why "assault weapons" need to be banned but not alcohol?

Now, here's the problem. "assault weapons" are not more dangerous (and I will prove it eventually in this comment) and are not illegal (in most states) Your thinking of fully automatic rifles. So called "assault weapons" are semi automatic rifles WITH "assault weapon" features.

Now, explain why "assault weapons" should be banned when 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?

Cars which travel above 30mphs per hour have no significant benefit to society. Why does someone need a 2,000 pound vehicle to travel around places when there is something called a bus or train? Your logic flawed on a grand level. Prohibiting things that are deemed "dangerous" or not "needed" is simply ridicules. Why must you feel the authority to tell mentally sane law abiding citizens what kinds of firearms, cars, or beverages they can have? Why do you punish mentally sane law abiding citizens because crazy people who take psychiatric drugs go on mass shootings? In fact, did you know over 90% of mass shooters were on or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs?

http://www.foodmatters.tv...
http://www.cchrint.org...
http://www.naturalnews.com...

So, to summarize my argument, why should "assault weapons" (which is a made up term created by the media to create fear against rifles that cosmetically LOOK like actually assault rifles, when in fact, they do NOT perform like them since assault rifles are fully automatic firearms) be banned if they kill so few people, the worst mass shooting ever was NOT committed by an "assault weapon", alcohol is unnecessary and kills FAR more people than "assault weapons" and psychiatric drugs are proven to be the cause to mass shootings? My goal here is to try and change the thinking of my opponent and get him to realize we should be looking for alternative to stopping mass shootings rather than prohibiting certain things from good citizens.
Romanii

Con

It seems that Pro has chosen to contest both premises.


DEFENSE OF PREMISE I
"If something is unecessary and dangerous, it should be made illegal"

"I am more than certain you will drink alcohol or you do drink alcohol right now. How can assume that? Because over 2/3 of Americans drink alcohol occasionally. Chances are good, you will drink alcohol."

Lol I don't drink alcohol...

"Now answer this, obviously alcohol is not a necessity and is dangerous because it claims over 10,000 lives each year (according to the CDC) Tell me why 'assault weapons' need to be banned but not alcohol?"

Alcohol SHOULD be banned. The reason it didn't work out back during the Probation is that alcohol has addictive qualities that make it extremely difficult for people to stop using it. Assault weapons have no such qualities, and thus, can be banned.
Also, I should clarify that alcohol is simply a beverage that some misuse. Assault weapons, on the other hand, were DESIGNED to kill people, and are not even comparable to alcohol in terms of potential to harm.

"Cars which travel above 30mphs per hour have no significant benefit to society. Why does someone need a 2,000 pound vehicle to travel around places when there is something called a bus or train? Your logic flawed on a grand level."

Cars DO have a significant benefit to society... they provide an amount of freedom in terms of schedule flexibility as well as mobility that buses and trains can never provide.
My logic is perfectly fine.
All Pro has done thus far is provide 2 irrelevant counter-examples, neither of which really disprove the premise.



DEFENSE OF PREMISE II
" Assault weapons are both dangerous and illegal"

"Your thinking of fully automatic rifles. So called 'assault weapons' are semi automatic rifles WITH 'assault weapon' features."

It sounds like Pro is attempting to change the definition of "assault weapon" here.
According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, an "assault weapon" includes ANY automatic or semi-automatic fire arm [1].
Pro did not provide a special definition in round 1, so we must go with the standard dictionary definition; not whatever definition Pro is trying to introduce mid-debate.

Also, Pro has provided quite the bulk load of statistics upon which he has based his case... however, NONE of them are cited. They shall be dismissed as part of the 87% of statistics that are made up on the spot :P


In summary, Pro's counter-examples do not disprove premise I, and none of his statistics aimed at debunking premise II have been sourced, and thus cannot be trusted.
Both premises remain standing, along with the conclusion: assault weapons should be banned.


SOURCE(S)
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...





Debate Round No. 2
USN276

Pro

Of course, this isn't a debate on alcohol, but I will continue to use arguments which prove an "assault weapons" ban to be ineffective and prove both a ban on alcohol and rifles with "scary cosmetic features" to be pointless and unnecessary.

"Assault weapons, on the other hand, were DESIGNED to kill people, and are not even comparable to alcohol in terms of potential to harm. " I'd like to point out two flaws to this. You say "assault weapons" are designed to kill. If "assault weapons" are designed to kill, why isn't any other type of gun designed to kill? There is a huge problem within the anti gun movement with understanding what an "assault weapon" is. As I stated before, the term "assault weapon" was a name created by the media to categorize rifles that LOOK like military assault rifles. Military assault rifles are fully automatic firearms. (which are extremely hard to acquire and afford) For example, the AR 15 SPORTING/DEFENSE rifle is a semi automatic rifle created by Eugene Stoner. (I would also like to state that the acronym "AR" does not stand for assault rifle. "AR" stands for Armalite rifle, which Armalite is the company that first developed the AR 15 platform) Also, your argument that "alcohol isn't made to kill, and "assault weapons" are made to kill proves a point for me. Why is it that alcohol, (a chemical compound) which is NOT made to kill people, kills over 50 times the number of people killed by so called "assault weapons" which you claim is "made to kill people"? Don't you find it strange? Moving on.

"they provide an amount of freedom in terms of schedule flexibility" trains and buses provide the same flexibility, and not only that, but reduce the amount of vehicle emissions into the air, and also reduce the amount of gas needed for every day life. You're making arguments and missing counter arguments that can be made against them. You copied and pasted my "train and buses" argument, and made no argument against it. The point of me mentioning this is to expose the hypocrisy of my opponent. He wants to ban particular rifles based on their scary "cosmetic features" (meanwhile these guns kill less than half the amount of people killed by hands and feet each year) but doesn't want to ban 2,000 pound personal vehicles which claim over 30,000 innocent lives per year. I would like to state I absolutely do NOT support a ban on personal vehicles. People have the right to own what they want. (as long as they are responsible)

"According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, an "assault weapon" includes ANY automatic or semi-automatic fire arm" my opponent is not acquainted with the national debate. The newest proposed gun control laws consisted of banning SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles with "assault weapon" features. This debate is solely on semi automatic with "assault weapon" FEATURES. In this debate, (and in most debates,) assault rifles and "assault weapons" have 2 different definitions. In this debate, "assault weapon" is what I stated earlier. An 'assault rifle" is a rifle with SELECTIVE fire capabilities. The debate is NOT on assault rifles. (fully automatic weapons)

My apologies for not citing my resources.

For the 2 worst mass shootings in the world:

You can look up the 2011 Oslo, Norway shooting, committed by Anders brevik with a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapon"

The second worst mass shooting in the world, committed by Woo Bum Kon, which took place in 1982.

How I got the stats for the total number of people killed in mass shootings in the past ten years:

http://www.motherjones.com...

You can use the table presented in the above link. If you start from 2003, to 2013, you will find that less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings. if you add up the total number of mass shootings in the past 10 years committed by assault weapon (there were 7 mass shootings involving assault weapons) the total number of people killed in those shootings was 76. What also needs to be taken into consideration is that "assault weapons" were not the only weapons used in those mass shootings. Shotguns and handguns were also present and killed people in those mass shootings. To be generous, I subjected about ten deaths which leaves the number of people killed in mass shootings by "assault weapons" in the past TEN years to be less than 70 people. If you would like, I would gladly state each mass shooting since 2003 in the comment sections and show the number of people killed in each one. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Less than 2% of gun homicides are committed by "assault weapons:

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

According to the FBI, 3.7% of gun homicides are committed by rifles IN GENERAL. That means a VERY reasonable estimate for the number of people killed by 'assault weapons" each year makes up less than 2% of gun homicides.

If you want to test my data with mass shooting statistics, I would implore you to that way you can see my arguments and statistics are not faulty.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

We are using definition #2 for assault weapon. Definition 2 is currently being debated, not definition #1
Romanii

Con


PREMISE I

Pro seems to have dropped Premise I.
Then it has been established:
If something is unnecessary and poses a significant potential for harm, it should be banned.



PREMISE II

Semantics

"The newest proposed gun control laws consisted of banning SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles with "assault weapon" features. This debate is solely on semi automatic with "assault weapon" FEATURES."

Pro is attempting to change the resolution mid-debate.
According to the DDO rules, if a word isn't specifically defined in the beginning, we must go by the standard dictionary definition, and the one for "assault weapon" is ANY automatic or semi-automatic fire arm.
Pro cannot simply introduce a new definition mid-debate.

"... 2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
We are using definition #2 for assault weapon. Definition 2 is currently being debated, not definition #1"

This was not established prior to my acceptance of the debate. I have already introduced a very reliable dictionary definition before Pro, and centered my arguments around it. He cannot change it like this mid-debate.

So, we stick with the original definition:
ANY automatic or semi-automatic firearm.


Sub-Premise 1: Assault Weapons are Unnecessary

Pro appears to have dropped this point.


Sub-Premise 2: Assault Weapons are Dangerous

Pro has provided a source that supposedly backs up his claims (http://www.motherjones.com...). Yet within this source, the following quote is found:

"[The] Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 isn't just about mass shootings, of course. By far the most common weapons used in these cases are semi-automatic handguns, the type of weapon also at the heart of the daily gun violence plaguing American communities."

Going back to the dictionary definition provided, an assault weapon is ANY automatic or semi-automatic weapon, and by Pro's own source, assault weapons are responsible for most mass shootings as well quite a bit of daily gun violence.

In fact, aside from the quote; the very TITLE of the article Pro has cited is "More Than Half of Mass Shooters Used Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines" ! More than half is a very substantial percentage, supporting the contention that assault weapons are very, very dangerous.

"I subjected about ten deaths which leaves the number of people killed in mass shootings by "assault weapons" in the past TEN years to be less than 70 people."

This is obviously false, as it is based off Pro's definition of an assault weapon and is not sourced, and thus shall be dismissed.

"Less than 2% of gun homicides are committed by "assault weapons"

For this, Pro cites a table from the FBI, but taking a look at the table, NO WHERE does it specify whether the weapons listed are assault weapons or not; it just lists "hand guns", "rifles", "shot guns", and "other fire arms". Rifles and hand guns CAN be considered assault weapons if they are automatic or semi-automatic, which many are.
I have no idea how Pro got that statistic from the table in question...

"If you want to test my data with mass shooting statistics, I would implore you to that way you can see my arguments and statistics are not faulty."

I have checked out all his sources and none of them support his case at all; in fact, some of them support MY case!

My premise remains standing; assault weapons ARE dangerous, as well as unnecessary.
And since Pro seems to have dropped by first premise, my conclusion remains valid: assault weapons should be banned.


Back to you, Pro.




Debate Round No. 3
USN276

Pro

I don't know how to make italics and different font sizes by the way (so it would be great if you showed me)

"if something is unnecessary and poses a significant potential for harm, it should be banned." Who has given you the authority to control peoples lives? Why should products that thousands of good people use responsibly be prohibited because they have the potential to harm other people? You have the ideology of a "nanny governor". Other citizens have no power to control other citizens.

Actually, yes, I can use the definition which was originally intended because #1. semi automatic firearms with "assault weapon" features is the the commonly debated topic. #2. It is my debate. You are not from Europe. You should be well aware of what is going on with our legislation. The Succeeding the 2 mass shootings which sparked the need for a false sense of security (an "assault weapon" ban), the hot topic was semi automatic rifles with what are referred to as "assault weapon" features. I can pull numerous definitions of the word "assault weapon" and it will say JUST a semi automatic rifle with (so called) "military style features" The meriam webster dictionary is not the dominant dictionary of the world.

You can actually read the bill here that was proposed by Diane Feinstein in 2013.

https://www.govtrack.us...

"Going back to the dictionary definition provided, an assault weapon is ANY automatic or semi-automatic weapon, and by Pro's own source, assault weapons are responsible for most mass shootings as well quite a bit of daily gun violence. " I suggest the opponent commits to some research. Out of the mass shootings we have had in America, the number of mass shootings involving "assault weapons" makes up less than 15% of mass shootings.

You can also actually read the data from MotherJones. (which is a liberal and anti gun) While they do state "half of the mass shootings involve assault weapons", their data COMPLETELY contradicts their title. I gave you the link to show you the number of mass shootings that occurred and the number of mass shootings involving 'assault weapons". My article proves two things. #1. Anti gunners give false statistics #2. "assault weapons" make a very small portion of mass shooting deaths.

"This is obviously false, as it is based off Pro's definition of an assault weapon and is not sourced, and thus shall be dismissed."

The claim that " didn't give an adequate definition of an "assault weapon" has already been refuted in the beginning of this essay.

"For this, Pro cites a table from the FBI, but taking a look at the table, NO WHERE does it specify whether the weapons listed are assault weapons or not; it just lists "hand guns", "rifles", "shot guns", and "other fire arms". Rifles and hand guns CAN be considered assault weapons if they are automatic or semi-automatic, which many are" A few things need to be pointed out. First, AR 15 and Ak style rifles don't make up the majority of rifles in America. Estimates say the number of "assault weapon"
owners in America exceeds a little over 4 million. About 43% to about the mid 30% of households own at least on gun (most gun owners own rifles) Therefore, if 3.7% of homicides are committed by rifles in general, the fairest estimate for the number of people killed by "assault weapon" could only make up less than 2% of gun homicides. The vast majority of handguns sold in America are single or double action handguns with a pistol grip and your typical handgun slide. (these are not "assault weapons")

"I have checked out all his sources and none of them support his case at all; in fact, some of them support MY case!"

Incorrect. One can simply not refute historical and FBI data. You have not been able to refute a single one of my arguments. Each argument you made against my statistics and including my definition of an "assault weapons" has been debunked.

Not only has my opponent made false accusations but has failed to actually look at mass shooting data. Not once has he gotten back to me on the fact that the 2 worst mass shootings in the entire WORLD were not committed by "assault weapons". This fact destroys the argument that "assault weapons" are more dangerous.

Con still has not been able to give a valid reason as #1 how a ban on these weapons will make a positive difference #2 Why these guns are "more dangerous" Con also has not given a reason as to why he has the authority to order other citizens and tell them what they can own.

I am also confused on Sub-Premise 1. He said I dropped this point. What exactly is meant by this?

To summarize what I would like to be answered, explain how "assault weapons" are dangerous and unnecessary when the Second Amendment exists, "assault weapons" make up less than 2% of gun homicides, the 2 WORST mass shootings in the WORLD were not committed by "assault weapons" and in the past TEN years, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings.

I will give the number of deaths invoking "assault weapons" in mass shootings in the past ten years below:

Sandy Hook: 26 Aurora: 12 Kinston: 10 Omaha: 8 Crandon: 6 Fairchild: 4 Carson City: 4 The total adds up to 70
Romanii

Con



PREMISE I

"Who has given you the authority to control peoples lives? ... Other citizens have no power to control other citizens."

Please remember that this is just an online debate.
It is not like I'll be the one enforcing these laws... I'm arguing that the GOVERNMENT should ban assault weapons, and the Government DOES have the authority to do that.

This premise is based in the common sense notion that if something poses a significant threat to society and no benefit, it needs to be removed from society. Pro has not refuted this at all; he has just thrown a red herring my way, claiming I don't have any authority when I didn't claim to have any in the first place.



PREMISE II

Semantics

"Actually, yes, I can use the definition which was originally intended because #1. semi automatic firearms with "assault weapon" features is the the commonly debated topic. #2. It is my debate."

If it is your debate, then you should have taken the initiative to provide a definition in round 1.
You failed to do so, and I did it for you, using the standard dictionary definition.

"The meriam webster dictionary is not the dominant dictionary of the world."

Lol Pro says that after using dictionary.com for his own definition...
And actually, Merriam-Webster's Oxford Dictionary is very well-respected all around the world.
Pro made a mistake and he needs to accept the consequences of it.

It's round 4 of the debate. Time to put the issue to rest.
An assault weapon is ANY automatic or semi-automatic fire arm.


Pro's Sources

"Incorrect. One can simply not refute historical and FBI data. You have not been able to refute a single one of my arguments."

Pro's historical data was based off faulty definitions and wasn't even sourced. His FBI data was faked, as I showed by actually looking into his source last round. One of his sources even supported my case instead of his.

"Estimates say the number of "assault weapon" owners in America exceeds a little over 4 million. About 43% to about the mid 30% of households own at least on gun (most gun owners own rifles) Therefore, if 3.7% of homicides are committed by rifles in general, the fairest estimate for the number of people killed by "assault weapon" could only make up less than 2% of gun homicides."

"Out of the mass shootings we have had in America, the number of mass shootings involving "assault weapons" makes up less than 15% of mass shootings."

Pro's statistics really have no meaning at this point, as NONE of them are sourced, and they are all based off of his faulty definitions.


Actual Debate

"I am also confused on Sub-Premise 1. He said I dropped this point. What exactly is meant by this?"

I claimed that assault weapons provide no benefit to society. Pro did not address that at all.

"To summarize what I would like to be answered, explain how "assault weapons" are dangerous and unnecessary when the Second Amendment exists"

Well, that is quite the fallacious argument...
How does the existence of the Second Amendment make assault weapons harmless and necessary?

I think Pro's own source (http://www.motherjones.com...) has already displayed that assault weapons are, without a doubt, dangerous and pose a significant threat to the well-being of society.

And as for being unnecessary, it's up to Pro to show exactly why assault weapons are necessary when any non-automatic gun could easily suffice for the purposes of self-defense.



CONCLUSION

Both premises remain standing strong, unscathed by Pro's red herrings, faulty definitions, and un-sourced statistics.
Thus, my conclusion remains valid: assault weapons should be banned.

Back to Pro for the final round of the debate.
Make it good.

Debate Round No. 4
USN276

Pro

"Please remember that this is just an online debate."

Exactly. Remember it is just an online debate. Stop harping over the fact that I simply didn't clarify the definition of "assault weapon" (even thought most Americans know what the heck I am talking about) I've debated this topic literally over 100 times. You are the ONLY American to not understand what definition of "assault weapon" I am talking about.

"This premise is based in the common sense notion that if something poses a significant threat to society and no benefit" I showed you how motor vehicles pose a significant threat and that there are other alternatives to getting to locations. If people took buses and trains, we would #1. Have less traffic #2. Have thousands of fewer motor vehicle deaths each year #3. We would save our fossil fuels. So if you take into consideration that there are other alternative means to travel from point A to B other than cars, why aren't you advocating that to be done?

Premise II

Again, to sum up what I said in the first paragraph, it is generally an understood term in America. When you say "assault weapon" people know you are talking about those "scary looking semi automatic rifles" As you said, it is just an online debate. Get over it and improvise. Adjust yourself. You haven't even displayed any arguments as to why a ban on these weapons would save lives. It hasn't affected you. if you want (and I'd prefer not to,) I will close this debate, start a new debate and be more specific for you because you apparently don't understand what I meant.

"Lol Pro says that after using dictionary.com for his own definition" Yes? And? i used the definition from dictionary.com. You used your definition from Merriam. It is neither ones fault. (Except it is baffling that you live in America and you have been aware of the gun control legislation which recently failed to pass) and you didn't know what definition I was referring to.

"Pro's historical data was based off faulty definitions and wasn't even sourced."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.fbi.gov...

Since you don't believe my argument for the fact that less than 70 people in the past TEN years does not hold water (even when I showed you the mass shootings committed by "assault weapons" between the years of 2003 to 2013) I recomend you do the research. Note that a mass shooting consists of a shooting involving 4 or more deaths committed by 1 or 2 indivudals.

I even stated and sourced my data before, but my oponent is proving the point that he makes false accusations and simply won't do any research himself. The only link he looked at was the FBI statistics link which I posted on my argument.

Sources cited:

U.S gun ownership rates: http://www.statisticbrain.com...

For how I got less than 15% of mass shootings in the U.S involving "assault weapons" I simply took the total number of mass shootings and divided it by the number of mass shootings involving "assault weapons" You can use the list of rampage killers link to look at the number of mass shootings which have occured in the U.S. Be sure to also look at workplace shootings. Not a single workplace shooting in the U.S was committed by an "assault weapon". You should also take school shootings into consideration. My 15% figure is actually being quite generous since it is far lower than 15%.

Premise 1

Actually, they do have a benefit to society because they are personal defense rifles. Home invasions have been prevented by the use of semi automatic AR 15s.

www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/Neighbor-Stops-Home-Invaders-by-Shooting-One-and-Holding-Other-at-Gunpoint-236891461.html?device=phone

http://www.theblaze.com...

I can cite more articles if you believe it is neccessary (excuse the purple letters. It is glitching right now)I think Pro's own source

(http://www.motherjones.com......) has already displayed that assault weapons are, without a doubt, dangerous and pose a significant threat to the well-being of society.

Motherjones displayed no proof "assault weapons" are capable of killing more people than other firearms. Anders Brevik used a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapon" and killed 70 people which is the world record. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'd really like for you to read up on The Oslo shooting. This obliterates the argument "assault weapons" some how have greater capabilities of killing people.

Here is more proof an "assault weapons" ban would not save lives.

(This is from a huge proponent of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban)

Koper, 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.

These are more statistics for proof the "assault weapons" ban would not be effective. (This is a police survey)

http://www.policeone.com...

"How does the existence of the Second Amendment make assault weapons harmless and necessary?" It doesn't make them harmless. However, it does prove them that they cannot be prohibited. I should have mentioned the Second Amendment in a different debate. This should have been a different discussion. My apologies. If you would like to argue it in a different debate, inform me.

" And as for being unnecessary, it's up to Pro to show exactly why assault weapons are necessary when any non-automatic gun could easily suffice for the purposes of self-defense." I can't exactly make an argument for the reason that I am not sure if mean both semi automatic and fully automatic, or just fully automatic. You should clarify next time.
Romanii

Con

First of all...

"You haven't even displayed any arguments as to why a ban on these weapons would save lives."

Actually, I did... I presented a case from logic showing that assault weapons should be banned, supporting both premises with reasoning and drawing the obvious conclusion from them.
Pro has failed to disprove either of those two premises, and so the conclusion remains standing.

Just needed to get that accusation out of the way before proceeding with my counter-rebuttals...



PREMISE I

"I showed you how motor vehicles pose a significant threat and that there are other alternatives to getting to locations...why aren't you advocating [car bans] to be done?"

As I stated before, cars provide much, much more than alternative options in terms of schedule flexibility and range of accessible locations, so cars DO have a large benefit to society that outweighs their harm to society.
This analogy simply doesn't work.
My premise remains standing: anything which is both dangerous and unnecessary SHOULD be banned.

.
.
.

PREMISE II


Semantics

"it is generally an understood term in America. When you say "assault weapon" people know you are talking about those "scary looking semi automatic rifles"....I've debated this topic literally over 100 times. You are the ONLY American to not understand what definition of "assault weapon" I am talking about."

Pro's personal experiences are irrelevant, as they are subject to confirmation bias and, more importantly, are unverifiable.
If he wished to debate whether or not "scary looking semi automatic rifles" should be banned or not, he should have said so. I accepted the debate with the standard dictionary definition in mind, and to try changing the definition after I've built my case around the OFFICIAL definition, is unfair.

"i used the definition from dictionary.com. You used your definition from Merriam."

I am embarrassed to admit that I did not notice this earlier, but if we go back to the link Pro provided for his definition, we see that it is the definition of an assault RIFLE; not an assault WEAPON.
Let's take a look at the dictionary.com definition of an assault WEAPON (http://dictionary.reference.com...=/)

"any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use."

Huh? That sounds familiar...
It has now been proven thoroughly that Pro's case from semantics is completely invalid.
An assault weapon is any automatic or semi-automatic fire arm.

This also confirms that all of Pro's statistics that are contingent upon his flawed definition are invalid.



Assault Weapons are Dangerous

"I even stated and sourced my data before, but my oponent is proving the point that he makes false accusations and simply won't do any research himself. The only link he looked at was the FBI statistics link which I posted on my argument."

Lol... at the very top of Pro's Wikipedia article, there is a disclaimer:

"This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness."

Not only is it from a not-so-well-respected source, but it even states that it is incomplete. And on top of that, Pro is using his faulty definitions to choose which incidents he gets to select. How does he expect ANYONE to take statistics like that seriously!?

And as for the FBI source, I see Pro hasn't denied my contention that the statistic he cited from it isn't actually present in the source material itself. Pro indirectly admits to making up statistics.

"For how I got less than 15% of mass shootings in the U.S involving "assault weapons" I simply took the total number of mass shootings and divided it by the number of mass shootings involving "assault weapons""

Invalidated by faulty definitions.

"Motherjones displayed no proof "assault weapons" are capable of killing more people than other firearms."

Invalidated by faulty definitions.

"I'd really like for you to read up on The Oslo shooting. This obliterates the argument "assault weapons" some how have greater capabilities of killing people."

Pro provides no elaboration whatsoever on why this is so...



Assault Weapons are Unnecessary

"Actually, they do have a benefit to society because they are personal defense rifles. Home invasions have been prevented by the use of semi automatic AR 15s."

Oh wonderful. Save a family every once in a while at the expense of suffering several mass-shootings per year. Perfect logic.
Unfortunately for Pro, citing a couple of miracle stories doesn't really prove that assault weapons have a benefit to society that outweighs their immense cost.
Also, the article cited by Pro insinuates that the only purpose that an assault weapon serves is fear factor; any type of gun can be designed to look intimidating!

"[The Second Amendment] does prove them that they cannot be prohibited"

False. The Constitution isn't a eternal, objective guide to right and wrong; it is a living document with provisions to allow it to change with the times.
Guns are far, far more dangerous than they were when the Second Amendment was written, and the Constitution needs to change to adapt to that new threat.


Both premises remain standing, and so the conclusion remains valid: assault weapons should be banned.
Vote Con!

Thanks to Pro for a spirited debate!

Debate Round No. 5
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
@debbie

copycaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
"thanks pro for a spirited debate"

this is now my catch phrase
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Yes, now I can sleep at night.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Fine I don't support gun rights. Happy?
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Ok, you should have been clear on that.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
All semi-autos.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Supporting gun rights means that you don't think mentally sane law abiding citizens should be prohibited from certain firearms because they are cosmetically scarier than other types of guns. Nor does someone who support gun rights want to ban the most popular sporting rifles in America.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe in a ban for all semi auto rifles, or just semi auto rifles with "assault weapon" features?
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
I only support gun rights under the condition of stringent gun control.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
So still, how do you support gun rights if you want to ban semi auto weapons which make up the majority of firearms in America? Basically what you are saying is that someone who says all guns should be banned except for single shot .22 rifles is for gun rights? lol. That's like me saying I am against all liberal ideas except for gay marriage, and then calling myself a liberal.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by joepbr 2 years ago
joepbr
USN276RomaniiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to give a proper definition for "assault weapons" at the start, and then spends part of the debate trying to reject the legitimate definition given by Con. Most of Pro's arguments were based on his strict and unexpressed interpretation of the term (coupled with some red herrings and straw men). By rejecting Pro's skewed interpretation, Con can easily refute his resolution, and even his sources seem to support Con.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
USN276RomaniiTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I would like to say that I noticed USN276's Straw man tactics well before Romanii pointed out. He also changed the subject many times, like he was actually refuting the point. And when Romanii disputed the FBI statistics, he commited the common violation of over qualifying his own sources. Instead of backing them up, he played the old "Its by the FBI so who are you to dispute it" ploy. Appealing to the audience was a major problem, and not cool. In the end, pro made no arguments that were unrelated, and I commend Romanii for using premise's in his argument, quickly turning around the BOP. For that, I'm going to have to give 6 points to Romanii.