The Instigator
USN276
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SamStevens
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

"assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,021 times Debate No: 52460
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)

 

USN276

Pro

You may make the first argument. I saw your comment on gun control so I would like to challenge you.
SamStevens

Con

I assume you mean the one comment on the "Big issues"that I posted. Yes I certainly think they should restrict the type of guns allowed. For example self defense weapons like small pistols should be allowed to those with a license, permit, and background check. Also I believe that guns overall should be less damaging, like less firepower and smaller caliber so if a person does decide to shoot, the gun would have a less likely chance to kill some one. They should also sell less damaging bullets, like hard rubber pellets like the use in prisons to the public instead of a metal bullet. High capacity magazines should also be banned

I also believe people with mental instabilities, like sudden anger or rage should not have possession of a gun for obvious reasons as they could shoot up a store with people in it for no reason. Military grade weapons should stay in the military and police guns should stay with the police. Even the police's guns should be down graded since there was that cop that shot a person in a movie theater for texting.
Debate Round No. 1
USN276

Pro

Ok, I'd like to first point out one thing. You needed to be more specific on what types of rounds should be restricted. Standard hunting rifle rounds typically have almost twice the power of your standard "assault weapon" cartridge.

Here's the issue with a pistol. A pistol lacks power, thus making ineffective for a multiple home intruder invasion. Believe it or not, a woman once shot a home intruder SIX times with a handgun and the burglar did NOT die. He was able to run out of the house and almost got away until police got him. Now, if it took 6 rounds for a woman to shoot ONE man, and the six bullets didn't even kill him, what would she have done if there were 3 or 4 home intruders? (multiple home intrusions are common by the way) That is why a semi automatic long gun is necessary. My choice of weapon would be an AR 15 because they are semi automatic and look nice.

Now, you haven't actually mentioned anything about "assault weapons". I don't have a clear understanding of what kind of gun control you feel is necessary. You didn't state what a "powerful" rifle round is, and you didn't say what kinds of firearms should be prohibited. Either way, my question for you is why don't you support alternative solutions to prevent mass shootings and the number of people killed? There are 3 things you should be aware of.

1. 75% of gun murder victims are criminals in the first place.

Often I get "well just because they are criminals, they don't deserve to die. " Well, do gun owners deserve to lose their gun rights because gang bangers and street thugs don't know how to properly behave?

2. Over 90% of mass shooters were on psychiatric drugs.

Doctors are even saying that these drugs motivate these killers to go on these killing sprees. So, rather than implementing gun control which restricts mentally SANE and law abiding citizens, why not create psychiatric drug laws?

3. nearly all mass shooters were previously mentally ill.

if we know this, why not work harder to restrict these people from owning guns rather than making everyone pay.

Homicides by "assault weapons"

The strange thing is that people advocate for a ban on "assault weapons", meanwhile they disregard how many people are killed by them. According to the FBI, 3.7% of homicides involve rifles IN GENERAL. That most likely means less than 2% of gun homicides are committed by "assault weapons" (majority of the victims being criminals)

I actually have more stats to say, but because I don't understand your exact viewpoints on the topic, I don't feel I am ready to present you my other arguments. Please be VERY detailed in what kind of firearms should be prohibited and explain how a ban on these types of weapons would "make a benefit' for society. I also said high capacity magazines would be for a different debate if you wanted to discuss it.
SamStevens

Con

Hunting rifles aren't in this equation. Their purpose is to take down big animals like elk, moose, and bear. Hunting rifles should stay in the hunting area and shouldn't be used in a public area like a store.

In response to the burglar, it all depends on where you shoot. If you shoot at the knees, the would make it very hard and painful to run. If you shot him in the arms, stomach, or thighs, he still could run away. That is why when purchasing a self defense weapon, it is important to train with the weapon. Then the victim would know where to shoot for the desired affect. If the burglar is shot in the chest, even if he does get manage to get away, those injuries can affect his heart and lungs.

An example of an assault weapon is the AR-15.

Why would a citizen need an Ar-15? All it does is put too much fire power into a persons hands. That is a gun that could serve a military purpose.

Here is a link defining an assault weapon:

http://www.assaultweapon.info...

It is a gun that fires 1 bullet per trigger strike. Weapons like an AR-15 is dangerous as well as a shotgun or a semiautomatic pistols, if they aren't removed, they should replace bullet ammunition with rubber pellets.

If they shouldn't be banned, they should at least replace the current types of ammunition with rubber pellets like they would use in riots or prison chaos. That way an owner can shoot more bullets at the criminal's face, stomach, groin, and other body as a deterrent or to teach them a painful lesson.

"Often I get "well just because they are criminals, they don't deserve to die. " Well, do gun owners deserve to lose their gun rights because gang bangers and street thugs don't know how to properly behave?"

Actually it is self defense and if they die, they did it to themselves. A death of a criminal is justified since it was an act of self defense. Owners don't lose there gun, they should keep pistols as self defense. For larger calibers like shotguns and assault weapons, rubber bullets should be used.

This is mainly my opinion based on shootings like the Colorado movie theater shooting, the indecent where the cop shot a person texting in a movie theater, as well as school shootings.

If these weapons were downgraded in performance, or at least have rubber bullets, deaths would be low in none at all, and injuries would be less significant.
Debate Round No. 2
USN276

Pro

dude, are you actually kidding me? How many times can I say this? IT'S THE OTHER DEBATE. Now you have to waste your time revising your argument so it counters my actually argument on the other one I told you THREE TIMES ALREADY. You cannot me more serious with this?

DO NOT vote on this debate anyone. The actual debate is here.
http://www.debate.org...

This was done because I made this debate with too few rounds. Again, DO NOT vote here. The actual debate is in the link I sent.
SamStevens

Con

SamStevens forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
I already posted my argument on the 2nd debate.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
lol, and you send me a link on "assault weapons" which proves the ignorance of gun banners. Do you even look at your links before sending them?
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
dude, are you actually kidding me? How many times can I say this? IT'S THE OTHER DEBATE. Now you have to waste your time revising your argument so it counters my actually argument on the other one I told you THREE TIMES ALREADY. You cannot me more serious with this?
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
I challenged you to the second one.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
Where is the 2nd debate?
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
oh no, were using the debate on the first one with only 3 rounds. Copy and paste what you put and put the arguments on the second debate i made.
Posted by Teemo 2 years ago
Teemo
You can ask airmax to reset the debate.
Posted by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
Ok, we could debate the assault weapons ans magazine portion in a different debate.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
I would like to debate the "assault weapons" portion separately. The magazine portion can be debated in a different debate if you would like to debate that after. I don't have a problem with licenses and background checks
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
This is what you typed.
Comment: I am more or less in the middle. The U.S. should limit the types of guns. They should ban assault and military grade guns as well as guns with a high capacity magazine. Only people how have permits and licenses should have a gun.
No votes have been placed for this debate.