The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Renzzy
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

mass murder weopons should be banned by statute

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,248 times Debate No: 2442
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (11)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"too bad i didn't have my AK47"
people often say prolimits on guns people are just appealing to emotion when someone goes on a rampage and shoots a bunch of people.. and in response are saying we should ban machine guns AK's etc.
that we're better off with those types of guns.

you want to talk about mushy emotional appeal? who ever hears about people not saving themselves, or better yet actually saving themselves, because they had access to an AK47? i never hear about it. i agree it doesn't mean it doesn't happen but. it's just mushy emotional appeal.
who ever hears about people getting ak47ed or machine guned down? lots of pepole hear this. school shootings, irate police, gang shootings etc

there's a difference between AK47's and axes etc (the idea that axes kill ppl too so all should be legal). the analogy makes the point that they're all killing machines, true. but, it's just an analogy, cause AK47's are mass killing machines. the analogy that axes should allow Ak's is the same as the analogy that AK's should allow nuclear arms in hand gun form etc. there are actually people who argue that.
most people don't want nuclulear arms.
so instead of all the analogies.... look to the fact.
the fact is, we don't know what save who etc.
but, i insist that common sense and understanding is that AKs kill more people than they save though, again, cause people don't hear about AKs saving people but do hear about people getting gunned down.

AKs are mass killing devices. i don't think it's unreasonable to say that banning htem or seriously limiting them to very spective people would reduce the number of them. true, criminals have them, but allowing them freely would make them a lot more available.

If you want to argue, on principle, that it doesn't matter that more peple die without the bans, but that those who can defend themselves should have full opporutnity to, then sure, that's an argument that has a basis, but at least admit what you're saying, the premises.

personally... i think reality is that if you have a gun, you're able to defend yourself... it doesn't have to be an AK.
you can have guns without having mass killing devices.
the times you'd actually need an AK are so rare as to render it far being outweighted by the times people get hosed down by them and freeer access.

the doomsday scenario of a giant invasion of the US is just that... a doomsday scenario, very unlikely to happen. again, talk about mushy emotional appeal.
and in most invastions... it wouldn't be that difficlut to arm the populace. only very very unlikely invasions would make us unable to. again, just mushy emotional appeal.

the constitution might provide an argument for mass killing devices.... but even if it did, that's not arguing sound policy, but rather techincal law. the law of man... not to downplay it completely, but it's not a policy argument.
plus... the 2nd amendment is notoriously unclear by academics, so to say it's clear is simply wrong. it could be argued either way.
personally, for those types of situations, i look past the text and look at policy, which is what should be the focus of the debating in the first place.

look past rhetoric people, and see the facts for what they are. as i see them, and i'd insist almost certainly true... more people get hosed by AKs etc than do people actually save themselves with them. (if those people had AKs would that have helped them? maybe. but the fact is they chose not to have them, many times. and usualy the free access to them simply enables someone to go on a rampage a whole lot easier. i admit studies show that guns being legal might be effective generally, but that doesn't mean mass murder weopons.)
i admit studies need done, to see which policy is most effective, if the studies can be determinative. if they can't, then people should just say.... 'if you're right about who gets saved more etc, then your position is good'

to me... mushy emotional appeal to be proAK47's etc, is usually just blind adherence by conservatives who simply want to tout the party line. it doesn't have to do with looking at the reality of the situation.
Renzzy

Con

Dairygirl,

Throughout your whole argument you fail to see one thing: Guns don't kill people; the people behind the guns kill people.

You say that AK47's are a "mass murder weapon", but why are they more so then any othwer weapon? Simply because they are able to fire faster? I don't think this is a logical argument. In the virginia tech shooting 32 people were killed, and many more wounded. Did the shooter use an AK47? No, he used hand guns. Handguns, or any other weapon for that matter can potentially do just as much if not more damage then an AK47 can. Anyone can conceal a handgun, bring it into any random store and start gunning people down. The same cannot be said of an AK47, simply because it is larger in size and cannot be concealed. As long as the person behind the handgun is a good shot, he could carry two of them and have twenty people dead without reloading.

I don't know about you, but I have never gone to an arms dealer and had a gun jump off the shelf and start shooting at me. You cannot logically say that guns kill people, therefore, because the gun is not the one shooting. One gun will not kill you and deader (if you will) then the next. It is the malicious intension of the person behind the gun that kills. There are always the people in the world that are messed up enough to murder another person, and there is no way to stop this. If you take AK47'a away, they will use hand guns. If you take handguns away, they will use long-range rifles. You cannot win, then, unless you remove the right to bear arms completely. This, however, would mean the complete removal of one of our rights as American citizens. Why the should it stop there? Why should it stop at the removal of the right to bear arms? Why should they not remove the right to religious freedom? Or the right of free speach? You see, one cannot take away the right to bear arms, because it would lead to more than just the right to bear arms, but the removal of just AK47's and the like would not help our cause at all.

Actually, instead of making AK47's illegal, quite the opposite might have a more powerful affect. If everyone was encouraged to carry a weapon like an AK47 around, then shootings like what took place in Virginia tech would dramaticly decrease I think. Most people in the world are not so messed up as to kiil other people, so why would those who are that messed up start shooting madly into a goup of people when most of the people will start shooting back with the same weapon? They generally woud not, unless they are suicidal.

It is these suicidal shootings that you cannot prevent then. You can reduce them having people who are that depressed get medical/mental help, but you cannot eliminate them entirely. However, those people that are so depressed as to commit a murder suicide generally do not use "mass murder weapons". Generally tey use weapons that can be concealed until the intended time of use; namely handguns. You say that these mass murder weapons make mass shootings easier, but once again, you are wrong. Yes, they can shoot faster, but that does not really mean anything. After 9/11 security in places like airports increased dramatically, and it would be impossible to get any gun passed their security, let alone a weapon as big as an AK47. The murders committed in places like airports decreased, then, with the increase of security. Where do the murderers go then? To places like Virginia Tech. What weapons do they use? Weapons that they can conceal.

Your whole argument is based on the fact that AK47's can kill more people, but I have proved that false. They can shoot more people at once, and therefore kill more people on the battlefield, but not in the case of a murder.

Thanks for the debate topic!

Renzzy
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the constitutiaonality is not clear of this issue... so i'm not going to debate it. for various interpretations by const scholars, which shows the variability, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

if it's not a ocnstituaoinal right, then taking ak's machine guns etc isn't being unconstitutional, and that argument doesn't matter.
besides, instead of tehnical legal arguments policy argments are better so the const argument is weak either way you cut it.

you never respondedto the idea that AKs etc don't save people in defense.

it's simply common sense that if someone has an AK instead of a pistol, they'll do more damage. so your main point is baseless. even if there's many people dead when a pistol is used, as you said, that only means more would be dead with a machine gun etc.

so... i agree guns don't kill people but people do... that doesn't mean we should allow machineguns etc. the reason we shouldn't.... is because people kill people. i never said that guns do, you put that in my mouth. an AK makes it much more potent, and spreads it.
i'm all for guns in general... just not machine guns etc.
Renzzy

Con

"the constitutiaonality is not clear of this issue... so i'm not going to debate it. for various interpretations by const scholars, which shows the variability,"

The way I see it, it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". The right of the people to bear arms. Nowhere do I read "The right of the people to bear arms that are not fully automatic", so I think this includes the right to bear fully automatic arms, with the proper permit required.

"if it's not a ocnstituaoinal right, then taking ak's machine guns etc isn't being unconstitutional, and that argument doesn't matter.
besides, instead of tehnical legal arguments policy argments are better so the const argument is weak either way you cut it. "

I just explained myself above. However, I would like to point out that this was very hard for me to understand because of grammar/spelling errors. Please do not take this as a personal attack, but rather as a pointer.

"you never respondedto the idea that AKs etc don't save people in defense."

What is there to respond to? Your right. If someone draws an AK47 on you, and you were stupid enough not to see it before they pulled it out, then there is really nothing you can do even if you have one too. Why, though, is an AK47 any different then a handgun? If someone draws a handgun on you, even if you do have an AK47 or the like, you are in trouble. Just because the AK47 shoots faster does not mean it is better for killing people, as I said in my last argument. If you wear an AK47 on your back everywhere you go, and someone in some dark alley puts a pistol to your head, your the one in trouble. Even if that pistol is only 22 caliber, you are still the one in danger. If you move to pull your gun out, you will find a bullet through your head very shortly.

The only place an AK47 would be more affective then a handgun, then, is in a crowded place. How, though, would you hide an AK47 with hundreds of people around you? IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. You would never get a gun that size far enough into a public place to do any damage, because you would have the cops on you before you came anywhere close to a crowded place.

"it's simply common sense that if someone has an AK instead of a pistol, they'll do more damage. so your main point is baseless. even if there's many people dead when a pistol is used, as you said, that only means more would be dead with a machine gun etc."

Do more damage to your corpse, maybe. A tank will kill you no deader (if you will) then a hand gun will, it is simply a matter of how quickly you die, and how messy you are after you are dead. If the first bullet is placed well, you will die. One bullet is all you need, and a murderer will generally try to make the least amount noise while doing something like murder. You say there would be more people dead when a machine gun is used? Your right. Good luck getting it into a place where there is more then five people. Someone is going to see that you are carrying a gun that size, and someone is bound to get concerned and call the cops.

"so... i agree guns don't kill people but people do... that doesn't mean we should allow machineguns etc. the reason we shouldn't.... is because people kill people. i never said that guns do, you put that in my mouth. an AK makes it much more potent, and spreads it."

I was not putting that in your mouth, I was simply making a point. I was saying that guns don't kill people, and in reality no gun will kill you deader (if you will... sorry, it's getting old, but I don't know how else to word it...) then another, so AK47's should not be outlawed. If it is killing lots of people quickly that counts, then I think we should outlaw cars, because they can kill a lot of people in short order too. While we're at it, we should probably outlaw skyscrapers and planes too, I mean, look what they did to us on 9/11? If that wasn't mass murder, I don't know what is.

Your argument that they kill people faster and in bigger quantities is no good then, and that pretty much makes YOUR whole argument baseless.

Thanks,

Renzzy
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

cars and planes are not analogous. these have many purposes other than killing, and AKs are built to kill only.
miltias and self defense are cop outs. they're never used.

your simply keep avoiding the fact that AKs actually kill more pepole and this is common knowledge, and Aks etc do not save people.

the only point you could possibly make is legal arguments, as you haven't shown any policy arguemnts. which means all you have is techincal, manmade law, not again wise policy.

i didn't want to get into the legality, cause it's complicated. it's clearly not "clear" but, since you insist.

-------------------------------------
the constitution only prevents congress from doing things. most conservatives say, and most justices agree, that states can do what ever they want, as a starting supposition. the only way the states are regulted is through the 14th amendment which came later in our country through judicial manuevering. so even if the congress cant limit the rights to guns, that doesn't mean a state can't. a conservative should admit this just to be consistent.

the only way the 2nd amendment could apply to the states is by "fundamental rights" or by incorporation. historically, fundamental rights has meant that it doesn't matter what the constitution or bill of rights says, but rather what the justices feel is fundamental. so, the argument is purely a matter of what sounds good, as far as that goes. sure, what the 2nd says as per ocngress is a good indicator, but it's not definitive, at least by precedent so far.
as for incorporation, the second amendment has not been incorporated to the states, at least yet.

even the second on its face is heavily disputed, rationally:
*********QUOTE
Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] Most circuit court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia. There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[7]

Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause[8] and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute infringement, and why have federal regulations been allowed.)[9][10] All federal courts have found that reasonable firearm regulation is allowable, while an outright firearm ban is currently the subject of Supreme Court review in District of Columbia v. Heller.
***********

if the gov allows for a militia and lets them have AKs etc... but bans guns, or at least AKs... that's not without the meaning of the amendment. who should decide? rational basis and eference to the people says the people should be able to, not judicial imputing of what it thinks when it's not clear.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

plus if you have the right to a pistol, that means you're carrying guns. you're not being infringed.
and, to be consistant for most conservatives anyway, the right to be a militia from everyone having guns is a good argument.... but the framers never knew of AKs etc, so the burden should be on those who say AKs shoud be included. we don't have an evolving constitution, after all, right?

----------------------------

here is another quote.

*********
In his 99-page article, Professor Bogus argues that the evidence—including an analysis of Madison's original language, and an understanding of how he and other founders drew on England's Declaration of Rights—strongly suggests that Madison wrote this provision for the specific purpose of assuring his constituency that Congress could not use its newly acquired power to deprive the states of an armed militia. Madison's concern, Professor Bogus argues, was not hunting, self-defense, national defense, or resistance to governmental tyranny—but slave control.

The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments. At the time, the southern states extensively regulated their militias and prescribed their slave control responsibilities. Second, the hidden history is important because it fundamentally changes how we think about the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder.
***********

I'd bet if you were to really study the history of the second amendment, the "collective rights" argument makes most sense. As that quote would indicate.

To be clearer.... look at the structure of the second amendment.... they didn't say "the people have right to bear arms" and hten later say "the people have a right to a militia" they structurd one arguably conditioned with the other. Now, it could mean what pro-complete right advocates say, but not necessarily at all.
So the idea is.... if the feds are allowing the states to form militias, then the second is being satisfied. and otherwise guns can be regulated. Or, it could mean two independant ideas. Or it could mean guns were how mlitas were made and so complte restriction on the feds illegal.
really, it's hogwash to say it's clear, when it's clearly not clear.

i'd bet thyis is one of those amendments they had to tweak in order to get everyone to agree on it. as that link would suggest.

wouldn't it be funny if the history were pretty clear that the second amendment is not what hardcore's say it is? and then they'd be forced to say that it's not clear? and not because of the obvious ambiguity in the statement itself... but because historical analysis forces that conclustion, on what should already be ambiguous text? "clearly this, clearly that.." yeah....
Renzzy

Con

You have spent your entire last argument pounding a point that you conclude is unclear on the issue. "...the obvious ambiguity in the statement itself... ". You have left most of my points entirely open, and in attempting to refute the small point I made about the constitutionality of the removal of AK47's, you have only proved the it's ambiguity on the matter, and have not made a case for yourself.

I therefore have nothing to respond to on the matter because you are right. It is ambiguous. I read it to say that the possession of all guns is a right, and you do not. It is a clash of personal opinions, then, and nothing can be done about it. We can argue the constitutionality of it until we are blue in the face, but until they pass a final law banning the right to fully automatic arms, there is nothing more to discuss. As of right now, they are legal. We are discussing, then, whether or not they SHOULD be legal, not whether or not they are constitutional.

"cars and planes are not analogous. these have many purposes other than killing, and AKs are built to kill only. miltias and self defense are cop outs. they're never used."

Well, it could be argued that an AK47 could can be switched to semi automatic mode and used for hunting. There is another used for it other than killing people. Yes, I know it is still killing, but if you care about killing deer too you had better want all guns to be made illegal.

One thing you need to understand is this: GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL. That was their purpose, that is their purpose, and that will always be their purpose. AK47's are made to kill people. AK47's are made to kill people effectively. This does not, however, mean that they are more likely to be used in the case of a murder, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT CONCEAL THEM. Go over all of the murders committed in all of the United States of America and you will fine that VERY FEW of them are committed with fully automatic weapons compared to the number committed with other weapons; namely handguns, knifes, and objects used to strangle. If we were to outlaw handguns, knifes, and objects that can be used to strangle someone the murder rate would drop more than it would if we outlawed AK47's and the like. If you want a murder weapon banned, I would suggest the handgun. They kill more US citizens yearly then automatic rifles.

"your simply keep avoiding the fact that AKs actually kill more pepole and this is common knowledge, and Aks etc do not save people."

Ugh. They CAN kill more people but the DON'T kill more people. Why? Because a weapon that size is simply impractical for use in a murder. On a battlefield the AK47 will kill more people then a handgun will. In a dark alley or a house during the night, a handgun will. Why? Because it is way more practical. If it is potential casualties that we are talking about, then once again I suggest we outlaw skyscrapers. They could fall on people at any time! What about bridges? Goodness, what if they start collapsing?

Your argument simply does not make any sense.

Thanks for the interesting debate topic!

Renzzy
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
"you simply insisted in response that you switch AKs to "hunt" mode.... yeah we're going to hunt deer with AKs!
if you switched it so much as to render it like a rifle..."

Most automatic rifle can switch to semi automatic mode by a switch. They can also switch back by a switch. It's no complicated process.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i said that the constittuion was unclear and that was a moot point yet you kept debating it.

and if AKs dont' save people... and it's common sense that they'd be used to kill people more... then this is a moot point in my favor.

your cars analogy i refuted. you simply insisted in response that you switch AKs to "hunt" mode.... yeah we're going to hunt deer with AKs!
if you switched it so much as to render it like a rifle... then it's just a rifle effectively and i'm not opposed to it, and you have ot point to argue for them if they're the same as i'm not arguing they shgouldn't be allowed in that case.

you're grasphing at straws, and have no basis in your argument.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Dairygirl,

I said in my last argument that AK47's don't save people. That is a moot point.

Renzzy
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
dairygirl4u2cRenzzyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by midgetman2 9 years ago
midgetman2
dairygirl4u2cRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
dairygirl4u2cRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by or8560 9 years ago
or8560
dairygirl4u2cRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
dairygirl4u2cRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Teja 9 years ago
Teja
dairygirl4u2cRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Lightning-2-the-Storm 9 years ago
Lightning-2-the-Storm
dairygirl4u2cRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03