"assault weapons" should be legal for mentally sane law abiding gun owners
Debate Rounds (5)
First I would like to define what an assault weapon is. An assault weapon (if my opponent disagrees, than I will use my opponent's definition for the rest of the debate), as far as my sources tell me, is a pretty subjective term, but firearms such as the AR-15 and the M4 class series are considered assault rifles, but also fall underneath the category 'assault weapons'. Again, I have looked at sources and I have found them unreliable so please do not take my word on this.
I believe that mentally sane, law biding citizens, or any other citizen for that matter, should have access to assault weapons. The use of such weapons is pointless on the ground of home soil. People like to throw in the argument that they can be used to defend us from a corrupt government. No, they can not. The government can take whatever it wants from you. First off, civilian, police, and military all have different grade guns and bullets. If you think an assault rifle will stop a corrupt, tyrant government, then you have another thing coming. I would be more than humored by a couple of Americans shooting at a M1 Abram's bullet proof body. You will get nothing done.
Another problem I have is that the average citizen is not trained in using such weapons in case of a need for defense, nor do they know how to use the weapon in a justified manner. People, honest, mostly law biding, mentally sane people, have used a gun out of fear, out of instinct almost, to shoot someone in an unjustified manner. While mistakes are understandable, they can be avoided entirely. Now, relying solely on the police to help us out is not always safe, but in a some situations, in fact, a lot, a gun is pulled out at the wrong time.
First off, how does one get a hold of such a gun to wreck havoc on your life if only sane people are allowed to get it? Even a person selling a gun on the black market would not sell a gun to someone who isn't all that mentally well in the head, unless they didn't know if they were okay or not in the head. An argument against banning guns completely is that people will just go on the black market for them, getting them from cops who sell them out the back door, so what would stop a not sane person to do go in to the black market and pick up an assault rifle? And believe me, people will sell assault weapons in the black market if it is illegal to sell them to not mentally sane people.
Another problem I find is, if we are able to get our hands on assault weapons, because the country is pretty divided on many, many situations, it may not take long for another civil war to break out. No sources are being used in my opening argument. Sources will come along later
I'd like to first point out an error in your comment. The AR 15 rifle is not in fact an "assault rifle" Assault rifles (like the M4 carbine) are fully automatic weapons. The AR 15 is a semi automatic sporting/defense rifle. (The acronym, AR does not stand for assault rifle. The AR stands for Armalite rifle.)
Now I haven't seen any arguments I haven't debated before in your introductory argument. Now you say "assault weapons" (which is a ridicules term made up by the media to fool the average American into thinking black "scary looking" rifles are some how more dangerous than other guns) are more dangerous. If that was true, why is it that "Assault weapons" 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. 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?
Now you argument that the American people would have no chance against the government is quite false. If the American people would have no chance against U.S government, why is it that the Taliban, made up of about 300,000 semi poorly trained combatants armed with some Aks, a few RPGs, and home made explosives, has been able to fight off the worlds greatest super powers for over 10 years? Not to mention they kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan in the 80s as well and the Russians followed no ROEs. So how come 300,000 Taliban fighters can fight off the greatest super powers in the world, but not at the minimum, 7 million armed American citizens? Something else interesting, the marine corp was asked in 2010 if the U.S government gave them orders to confiscate citizens guns, and the citizens used lethal force against them, would you shoot back? 80% said they would not and about 11% said unsure. So think about it. Most likely a little more than half of the U.S military would become defectors and fight with the U.S citizens which probably at the minimum would be 7 million against about 10% or a little more of the military who still would follow unconstitutional orders. Who would be the victor? The answer is clear.
I would like to point out how my opponent has really gotten me thinking and that the argument is well thought out. The comparison made with alcohol was also spot on, although there are people who debate that alcohol should be banned but, nonetheless, my opponent has really gotten me in to a pickle.
I would like a clearer definition of law abiding citizen. Should a juvenile delinquent be denied an assault weapon at the age of 35? And what is to happen to a mentally sane law abiding citizen if they end up being criminals? Do you take their gun away?
To be honest, I am on the verge of forfeiting this debate. My opponent has simply convinced me that current position is wrong. My position as noted on this website has just changed from undecided to pro.
Of course, I don't advocate for a ban on alcohol. Rather than banning alcohol, we should look for alternative solutions just as we should look for alternative solutions to prevent mass shootings. I'm only being brief now because I don't have time but I would love to tell you some interesting trends and something that we can do to virtually stop all mass shootings. (it's not the "gun free zone" argument you may have heard in the past)
Now if a juvenile committed a crime a long time ago, and is now 35 and living a normal life and has stayed away from crime, I see no reason to prohibit he/she from owning a gun. I believe if a gun owner commits a crime (and it is very rarely since .01% of firearm violations are committed by law abiding gun owners) like say an armed robbery, his/her firearms should be taken away forever and should be paid back for half of what they are worth.
I appreciate unconditionally that really listened to my argument. A lot of people, even with the facts an arguments that I have presented them, will still go on and say "assault weapons should be banned because no one should have them." Should we have to live in a world where we must ban everything "not necessary"? That is why I bring in the alcohol argument. Most people drink alcohol so I try to put them in their shoes. So thank you for putting yourself in our shoes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tyler3923 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and spelling were a tie. As was sources as none were cited.
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.