"assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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:
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.
DO NOT vote on this debate anyone. The actual debate is here.
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 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.