Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Should Assault Weapons be banned?

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 6:26:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Personally, I don't think that assault weapons should be banned. However, I would like to gain some perspective on the matter. What would be some reasons for and against a total ban on assault weapons?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 6:28:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
An assault weapon is defined as "a semi-automatic firearm possessing features similar to those of military firearms."
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 10:00:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 6:28:07 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
An assault weapon is defined as "a semi-automatic firearm possessing features similar to those of military firearms."

For:
-prevention of crime
-Gun regulation, not complete gun control, big difference
-The constitution states that a well regulated militia under the people have the right to bear arms, but how much arms should you bear? The founding fathers couldn't have comprehended an AR-15 today.
- 40% of firearms today were given to people without a background check
-If guns enter the hands of a psycho, we have Colorado all over again.
-Criminals do not register guns, this is true, but that is because they're criminals, they don't follow the law. Does that mean we should drop stealing as a law because someone breaks it frequently? No, whats the difference here?
- 30k guns is lost each year from a dealers inventories. Untraceable unless regulated.

Against:
-Guns don't kill people, people do. Blaming guns for deaths is like blaming my pencil for getting me a terrible mark on my exam.
-Sportsmen, law-abiding citizens are impacted mostly negatively. In fact, 60% of US gun owners have them for self defense
-deterrence of crime: someone breaking in knowing a gun is in the house is less likely to do so.
-Against the constitution
-Even if guns were gone, people cannot defend themselves from tyrannical governments, criminals, property, etc...
-Bradey laws have had inconclusive impacts on suicides
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 11:19:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 6:26:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I don't think that assault weapons should be banned. However, I would like to gain some perspective on the matter. What would be some reasons for and against a total ban on assault weapons?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 3:53:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 10:00:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/19/2013 6:28:07 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
An assault weapon is defined as "a semi-automatic firearm possessing features similar to those of military firearms."

For:
-prevention of crime
-Gun regulation, not complete gun control, big difference
-The constitution states that a well regulated militia under the people have the right to bear arms, but how much arms should you bear? The founding fathers couldn't have comprehended an AR-15 today.
- 40% of firearms today were given to people without a background check
-If guns enter the hands of a psycho, we have Colorado all over again.
-Criminals do not register guns, this is true, but that is because they're criminals, they don't follow the law. Does that mean we should drop stealing as a law because someone breaks it frequently? No, whats the difference here?
- 30k guns is lost each year from a dealers inventories. Untraceable unless regulated.

Against:
-Guns don't kill people, people do. Blaming guns for deaths is like blaming my pencil for getting me a terrible mark on my exam.
-Sportsmen, law-abiding citizens are impacted mostly negatively. In fact, 60% of US gun owners have them for self defense
-deterrence of crime: someone breaking in knowing a gun is in the house is less likely to do so.
-Against the constitution
-Even if guns were gone, people cannot defend themselves from tyrannical governments, criminals, property, etc...
-Bradey laws have had inconclusive impacts on suicides

Supreme court has ruled you don't have to be in the militia to own a gun.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:09:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 3:53:37 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 5/19/2013 10:00:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/19/2013 6:28:07 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
An assault weapon is defined as "a semi-automatic firearm possessing features similar to those of military firearms."

For:
-prevention of crime
-Gun regulation, not complete gun control, big difference
-The constitution states that a well regulated militia under the people have the right to bear arms, but how much arms should you bear? The founding fathers couldn't have comprehended an AR-15 today.
- 40% of firearms today were given to people without a background check
-If guns enter the hands of a psycho, we have Colorado all over again.
-Criminals do not register guns, this is true, but that is because they're criminals, they don't follow the law. Does that mean we should drop stealing as a law because someone breaks it frequently? No, whats the difference here?
- 30k guns is lost each year from a dealers inventories. Untraceable unless regulated.

Against:
-Guns don't kill people, people do. Blaming guns for deaths is like blaming my pencil for getting me a terrible mark on my exam.
-Sportsmen, law-abiding citizens are impacted mostly negatively. In fact, 60% of US gun owners have them for self defense
-deterrence of crime: someone breaking in knowing a gun is in the house is less likely to do so.
-Against the constitution
-Even if guns were gone, people cannot defend themselves from tyrannical governments, criminals, property, etc...
-Bradey laws have had inconclusive impacts on suicides

Supreme court has ruled you don't have to be in the militia to own a gun.

They've also said that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right.

Also, I only see that the Second Amendment says that your right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. Not once does it say that you have the right to acquire arms.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:43:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Also, I only see that the Second Amendment says that your right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. Not once does it say that you have the right to acquire arms."

That's like saying you have the right to life but you do not have the right to sustain or defend it.The acquisition of arms is a prerequisite to the right to keep and bear them.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:41:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 3:53:37 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 5/19/2013 10:00:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/19/2013 6:28:07 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
An assault weapon is defined as "a semi-automatic firearm possessing features similar to those of military firearms."

For:
-prevention of crime
-Gun regulation, not complete gun control, big difference
-The constitution states that a well regulated militia under the people have the right to bear arms, but how much arms should you bear? The founding fathers couldn't have comprehended an AR-15 today.
- 40% of firearms today were given to people without a background check
-If guns enter the hands of a psycho, we have Colorado all over again.
-Criminals do not register guns, this is true, but that is because they're criminals, they don't follow the law. Does that mean we should drop stealing as a law because someone breaks it frequently? No, whats the difference here?
- 30k guns is lost each year from a dealers inventories. Untraceable unless regulated.

Against:
-Guns don't kill people, people do. Blaming guns for deaths is like blaming my pencil for getting me a terrible mark on my exam.
-Sportsmen, law-abiding citizens are impacted mostly negatively. In fact, 60% of US gun owners have them for self defense
-deterrence of crime: someone breaking in knowing a gun is in the house is less likely to do so.
-Against the constitution
-Even if guns were gone, people cannot defend themselves from tyrannical governments, criminals, property, etc...
-Bradey laws have had inconclusive impacts on suicides

Supreme court has ruled you don't have to be in the militia to own a gun.

I never gave my opinion?
I am simply stating both sides.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:44:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 3:54:21 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
And regulation is just a nice word for control nowadays.

LOL no.

Regulation is stuff like background checks, or tracing practices.
Control is the outright control of all arms. Big difference,
Regulations still enables private property to be allowed, control implies the private property of a gun can be revoked at will, this is not the case in regulation.

Besides, you have a weapon that at the pull of a trigger can selectively wipe someone out at any given point and time, you want to allow this to get in the hands of another Jack the Ripper? Another Manson? Another Bundy? I sure as fvck don't.

And thats the goal of regulation; to enable law abiding citizens to have that right, and to prevent crazies from actually obtaining it. Now it's impacts are disputed though, but that is the general goal.
Thank you for voting!
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:07:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When we start letting a small group of people determine what is best for the vast majority, and this majority does not retaliate, we are gearing towards tyranny. Thank god for the one issue where the people won't let the government bully them, gun control.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:31:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:07:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
When we start letting a small group of people determine what is best for the vast majority, and this majority does not retaliate, we are gearing towards tyranny. Thank god for the one issue where the people won't let the government bully them, gun control.

......tell me. What will that little pea shooter do against a tank or a jet exactly?
Thank you for voting!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:43:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 12:31:40 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:07:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
When we start letting a small group of people determine what is best for the vast majority, and this majority does not retaliate, we are gearing towards tyranny. Thank god for the one issue where the people won't let the government bully them, gun control.

......tell me. What will that little pea shooter do against a tank or a jet exactly?

Any large-scale revolution would involve asymmetric warfare. Furthermore, that warfare would be taking place on home ground, meaning that attacks on rebel forces could very well destroy the very infrastructure that make it possible to sustain our current military might, not to mention the outright sabotage of said infrastructure and desertion from the armed forces once they are turned on civilians. It wouldn't be quite so simple as bringing our military and technological might to bear.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 5:43:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 12:31:40 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:07:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
When we start letting a small group of people determine what is best for the vast majority, and this majority does not retaliate, we are gearing towards tyranny. Thank god for the one issue where the people won't let the government bully them, gun control.

......tell me. What will that little pea shooter do against a tank or a jet exactly?

You do realize our national guard is state funded and has an air force, and tanks! The citizens would just be there to defend their own homes and property, the national guard doesn't have quite as good of tech as the federal military, but there are 500,000 of them initially, and probably more if the government tried to take over. Plus there are 100,000,000+ gun owners in this US, want to bet at least 1/10 of them (10,000,000) own guns for self defense, and to defend against a tyrannical government if they need to?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 5:47:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 12:31:40 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:07:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
When we start letting a small group of people determine what is best for the vast majority, and this majority does not retaliate, we are gearing towards tyranny. Thank god for the one issue where the people won't let the government bully them, gun control.

......tell me. What will that little pea shooter do against a tank or a jet exactly?

Also, you do realize most of our air bases are not ridiculously far off from civilian areas. Plus, you don't think that some of the enemies of the US, or people who are more hateful towards the US wouldn't send these rebels some kind of assistance?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:23:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 5:43:13 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 12:31:40 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:07:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
When we start letting a small group of people determine what is best for the vast majority, and this majority does not retaliate, we are gearing towards tyranny. Thank god for the one issue where the people won't let the government bully them, gun control.

......tell me. What will that little pea shooter do against a tank or a jet exactly?

You do realize our national guard is state funded and has an air force, and tanks! The citizens would just be there to defend their own homes and property, the national guard doesn't have quite as good of tech as the federal military, but there are 500,000 of them initially, and probably more if the government tried to take over. Plus there are 100,000,000+ gun owners in this US, want to bet at least 1/10 of them (10,000,000) own guns for self defense, and to defend against a tyrannical government if they need to?

Wouldn't make a lick of difference, remember the 1992 riots in LA? Their a division of the US department of Defence hosting members of the navy army and airforce, your right, but that doesn't mean in a time of a class warfare say, where the middle and lower class peoples are in a gun fight against the government and upper class, that they would side with the people. They'd probably side with the government. Otherwise they simply wouldn't exist.

And as for the gun owners, sure awesome. Goodluck using that weapon against a man trained to kill and does it for a living. Still wouldn't matter. If a tyrannical government decided to ruin your day, nothing you could do about it.
Thank you for voting!
fishinbub
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 3:18:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument against an assault weapons ban is simple. An assault weapon (from the first AR ban) is a semi-auto gun that accepts removable magazine and posses 2 additional attachments (pistol grip, bayonet, flash suppressor, folding stock etc. are a few listed in the law). Under a ban it would NOT be illegal to own an assault weapon. No politician is pushing for that and it also is not practical to take guns purchased legally from citizens.

So, I can go buy a gun, a bayonet, and a folding stock. Then when I get home I'll take me bayonet and folding stock and put them on my new gun. I have broken no laws, including the AR "ban", but I just purchased an assault rifle...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 3:24:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Depending on how tyrannical a government was, they might simple threaten to nuke populated areas if people continued to resist.

Of course, another problem is that the whole libertarian fear of some dictator coming into power, taking away freedoms, et cetera misses how dictators usually operate: Get a charismatic individual into power, find a scapegoat group to hate on, and then work using demagoguery.