The Instigator
JimShady
Pro (for)
The Contender
meliainkorea
Con (against)

Assault Rifles should not be outrightly banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
meliainkorea has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 112879
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

JimShady

Pro

Hello, here we have another classic gun control debate, specifically on the topic of banning assault rifles altogether (in the United States, but really it could be any country). I will be taking the position of NOT banning them. You will be taking the position OF banning them.

Just so we are clear, for the purposes of this debate, an assault rifle is defined as:
(noun) a semi-auto or full-auto military-style rifle that utilizes magazines that hold 10 rounds or more.

Ex: AR-15 semi-auto rifle.

I know, I know... some will say a true assault rifle can only be full-auto, but the media consistently refers to semi-autos as assault rifles, so that's what we are going with as well. Also, to be clear, "ban" means that it's absolutely illegal to buy or own one.

First round is acceptance, and the next 3 rounds are for arguing. I hope we both have fun and also learn something new.
meliainkorea

Con

We accept
Debate Round No. 1
JimShady

Pro

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to bare arms. I think that is widely agreed upon. What is subject to debate is what kind of arms they are allowed to bare. Assault rifles are more powerful, yes. They are more deadly, yes. But what makes them deadly? A gun by itself is an inanimate object, just like a truck or a tennis racket. It's only when a human chooses to make these things deadly that they BECOME deadly.

So I ask you, if you support banning assault weapons, are you also supportive of banning assault vehicles (vehicles that people use to hurt other people)? obviously that is nonsensical... there's no such thing as an assault vehicle, just a vehicle. The only way assault could be tagged on there would be because a human uses it that way.

Assault weapons are also good for self defense. Do you absolutely need one to defend yourself? No, but I would rather prefer that then a bolt action rifle.

Also, many Americans already own AR-15s, AK-47s, AUGs, and similar rifles. If you want an outright ban, how would you take away those people's guns? You might be dealing with another civil war there if you try that.

Another thing is that handguns cause many more fatalities per year than assault weapons. Are you in favor of banning those, too? If not, then why?
meliainkorea

Con

The main feature of assault rifles is that they are produced to attack masses of people in a short amount of time. One of the major reasons of not regulating guns in the United States is that people consider guns a method of self-protection. However, consider this, usually in a theft there will be one thief trespassing in your home. Do you need a weapon designed to kill a crowd or will a pistol be enough to defend your home?
Although it is true that pistols kill more people than assault weapons do, it is also true that assault rifles are used more in mass shootings where large amounts of people are massacred. Their kill rate is far greater than a pistols.
If I attached a big sword to my car, I could kill many more people with my car. Obviously, this is illegal, and assault rifles are illegal, too.
Debate Round No. 2
JimShady

Pro

The main feature of assault rifles is that they are produced to attack masses of people in a short amount of time.

So? What if a person is being attacked by multiple people at a time? Don't you think that there could be a use for that with civilians? Also, this doesn't matter at all, because even if its designed for that, it depends on the user to use it like that. A sword designed for killing people can be used as a wall hanger. Similarly, a gun designed to kill many people can be used only to defend oneself.
One of the major reasons of not regulating guns in the United States is that people consider guns a method of self-protection. However, consider this, usually in a theft there will be one thief trespassing in your home. Do you need a weapon designed to kill a crowd or will a pistol be enough to defend your home?
In home defense, pistols are great. But if it's outside, at longer ranges, I would much prefer the accuracy of a rifle. And even if I miss the first tim, I got 29 shots or more to follow through with. With a hunting rifle, I'm lucky to have 5 shots shot slowly.
Also, you fail to mention another major reason why the 2nd Amendment was put into plac. It helps protect us from a tyranical government. Now, I've heard the argument that the early Americans only had muskets/flintlocks, they didn't know of the firepower guns would have nowadays. So therefore we are interpreting the 2nd wrongly to include much deadlier weapons.
However, this argument fails. Back then, the British army also used muskets/flintlocks, so the two were evenly matched on weaponry. The US Army as of right now uses assault rifles, and so to have any chance against a tyrannical US government, the people need to be matched in small arms weaponry.
Think about it, in the Civil War, the South (who at least thought the North was being tyrannical) was not only limited to using muskets/flintolock rifles. They too could weild faster shooting breech loaders, revolvers, and even a few lever actions. Because of this, they too had a chance.
it is also true that assault rifles are used more in mass shootings where large amounts of people are massacred.
True, but realize that if asult rifles are banned, mass shooters will turn to other weapons. The Virginia Tech shooter killed a huge number of people, more than the average mass shooting, using only pistols. It's possible for other people (and plus, these are concealable.)
If I attached a big sword to my car, I could kill many more people with my car. Obviously, this is illegal, and assault rifles are illegal, too.
Logical fallacy of the weak analogy. There is absolutely no reason for attaching a sword to your car, especially when you are driving. It's illegal because you pass pedestrians and it's out in public all the time pointing at people. An assault rifle actually has a use, a much more practical use, and is not a constant safety threat to pedestrians unless a crazy person does it.
Also, you bring up a good point for my side. So attaching a sword to a car is illegal. Do you really think the law will stop a criminal from doing this if he really wants too? No. The only real solution would be to ban swords altogether, but that would infringe on so many law-abiding citizen's rights. Similarly, a criminal will use an assault weapon regardless of the regulations put forth by government, and so banning them would only gurt law-abiding citizens.
Just look at gangs. For the most part, full-auto weapons ar highly, highly restricted, and yet they use MAC-10s, AK-47s, Uzis... Is the law helping in these situations? NO. And if full auto weapons were legal across the board, this still wouldn't help, because right now full-auto street weapons are insanely cheap compared to legal ones.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dukeofpanda 3 years ago
dukeofpanda
We shouldn't ban things because it won't stop criminals from doing it anyway...

Then we shouldn't ban murder, or anything because it won't stop people from doing it. We ban things to demonstrate that society disapproves. We ban swords on cars because it's immensely and needlessly dangerous. Similar things can be said about Marijuana because people feared the effects it could have. The same is being said about assault rifles. Swords aren't banned, but assault vehicles are,if they existed. The point was that assault vehicles are not allowed.

And just declaring something a logical fallacy without describing which fallacy was committed and how is just cheap and meaningless. Why don't you quit throwing mud?
Posted by JimShady 3 years ago
JimShady
I already said that semi-auto AR-15s are technically not assault rifles. I am referring to them as such for simplicity of the debate and terminology. I recognize that they aren't truly assault rifles, but i also recognize that that's a commonly used name for them. And plus, saying semi-auto, magazine fed rifles is just too long.

It's sort of similar to the evolution of the word "literally." It used to mean "in a literal manner or sense," but slowly it is evolving to be used for "emphasis or to express strong feeling." Words evolve, and like it or not, the term "assault rifle" is evolving to encompass both semi-auto and auto.
Posted by WhiteHawk 3 years ago
WhiteHawk
The 2nd amendment was created to allow the states to form their own militia against their own federal government. Not hunting. No gun should be banned because if the government keeps the better guns for themselves, then they'll be able to overthrow we the people. Also, AR-15's are not assault rifles. If you think they are because the mainstream media said it and you believe their BS, then that's your fault.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.