The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Assault Weapons Should Not Be 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 626 times Debate No: 94724
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




It's always been difficult for me to understand how people don't know what assault weapons are, yet want to get rid of them.

Allow me to clarify what these weapons REALLY are.

1. In 1954, a company called ArmaLite was founded. To this day weapons based on ArmaLite's design for rifles are in use in the military. These include the M16, as well as the M4; but I cannot stress this enough, the AR-15 is a civilian Model of ArmaLite's weapon design. The AR in AR-15 stands for ArmaLite Rifle, not assault rifle. Now that we have that out of the way, I'll define what an assault rifle really is.

I define an assault rifle as a select fire rifle chambered in an intermediate rifle cartridge. Select fire is a switch that will allow a rifle to change between firing modes. It is typically laid out SAFE-SEMI-BURST-AUTO. In the military, it is just laid out SAFE-SEMI-BURST. The AR-15 has no select fire, instead, a safety switch, which most guns already have, whether they're hunting rifles or automatic pistols.

The other parts of the "assault rifle" are mostly cosmetic, and make little difference. A telescoping stock is the only thing on the back of a gun that has any actual function, A thumbhole stock and a pistol grip don't actually make a gun any different or any more controllable. That is a lie, and even a telescoping stock makes the rifle only slightly smaller. A folding stock provides little concealability, as an AR-15-is already a large rifle even without a stock.

One important thing is that an AR-15 is incompatible with a folding stock, as it needs a thing on the back of the gun called a buffer tube to function. The buffer tube is already about 10 inches with a carbine length AR-15, and so cannot be used with a folding stock.

A non detachable magazine feature has loopholes, and can already be modified to be detachable without a tool.

Speaking of magazines, their size matters very little, as contrary to popular belief, reloading only takes 2 seconds at max, which when you are sufficiently spaced from your victims ends up making no difference. Also, smaller magazines are more maneuverable, and end up speeding up the reload, which defeats the purpose of magazine size restrictions.

A "barrel shroud" Serves the same purpose as the forward grip of a hunting rifle. Rifles are meant to be held with both hands so that they may be shouldered and aimed comfortably, as they usually have smaller, more precise iron sights and are much more heavy than pistols.

A barrel shroud is really to protect you from burning your hands on the barrel of a heavy machine gun so that you brush up against it during the reloading process, you won't end up burning your fingers off.

A flash hider distributes gas better than the muzzle of a normal rifle so that you don't get powder and gas in your eyes. It disrupts the fire from the muzzle flair so that it won't blind you when you shoot in the dark. It does not make the shooter invisible. It is commonly also called a flash suppressor, but it does not serve entirely the same purpose as a regular suppressor.

A suppressor makes a gunshot a little quieter but you must use special ammunition. It also hides the muzzle flair and flash. Keep in mind, however, that most guns are loud even while suppressed.

Firing mode for assault weapons is a very important detail. The AR-15 is SEMI AUTOMATIC. This means one shot per pull of the trigger. The fastest shooters can only shoot around 5 rounds a second with an AR-15. Real fully automatic assault rifles fire anywhere from 10 to 20 rounds per second.

The politicians trying to ban these weapons have no idea what they're talking about either. According to them, as long as it looks scary, it should be banned.

The AWB in '94 was successful at decreasing the number of assault weapons used in crime by half, which did next to nothing, as assault weapons for the majority already weren't really being used in crime.

So in conclusion, banning assault weapons has been shown to be generally ineffective at controlling gun crime as a whole, and massacres would still happen.


It has always been my belief that civilians should not be able to walk into a store an easily get a gun. Assault weapons should be banned because guns should be banned for civilians. licensed Hunting and shooting ranges should be able provide guns to Licensed people and the guns should never leave the designated area. Every time I say anything about any measure of gun control 2-no amendment supporters are always like, Guns don't kill people, and my response is always, no but they make it ridiculously easy to kill people. Can you defend yourself against a guy with a knife charging at you form a distance, yes, a bullet, no. Then when a mass shooting happens people are like,"their going to make it about gun control again" my response is, then what is it about then? Are you saying you can kill 50 people with a knife, no you might kill a few, but you won't last very long.
Debate Round No. 1


No offense to you, but you're a classic example of someone who doesn't know what the second amendment is actually for. You see, the founding fathers didn't even trust themselves, and wanted you and me to be equally armed to them in the case that they became tyrannical and tried to level us. The second amendment wasn't made for hunting or going to the shooting range, because if you didn't hunt, you didn't eat; and at the time of the country's founding, there was no such thing as a shooting range.

If you intend to protect from criminals by using laws, you don't understand the dynamic of a criminal. A criminal is already willing to break the law if they want to kill you, so they already aren't going to follow the law and just obtain guns illegally. Plus, a ban wouldn't take care of ghost guns, and if it just bans the sale and manufacture, then it wouldn't take care of the guns that are already out there.

Guns don't actually make it any easier to kill people than any other weapon. I don't know about you, but I personally could kill 50 people with a knife or a baseball bat.

Addressing the thing about defense from a bullet, your defense is rather than to try to run and get shot in the back, disrupt your attacker's ability to shoot you, then pull out your own gun and fill them with lead.

I'd rather just shoot the person attacking me than risk being disarmed and get killed.

"Those who will give up freedom for security deserve neither and will get nothing."

-Benjamin Franklin, 1755


Times have changed since the 18th century. And you seriously think all civilians with guns would be a match for the United States military. How about the police shootings in Texas, it's Texas so somebody their had a gun, yet the officers(who also had guns) still were killed. By banning guns we make it harder for criminals to get guns, and we could buy the guns already out there and take the rest, it worked pretty darn well for Australia. When you see mass shootings in Europe it's ISIS, before ISIS Europe didn't have mass shootings because they didn't have guns, there were no mass knifing. You couldn't not kill 50 people in a nightclub with a knife or baseball bat, 10 people would attack you at once and you'd kill 3 of them. With a gun sometimes you don't see the person shooting you, and if your argument is to fire back, than it requires every single person to own a gun. I seriously don't think you understand how much easier guns make it to kill people with, there is a reason America has more mass killings than any other 1st world country.
I would also like to say as a response to the quote, which I have used in arguing against the NSA on a form on a different website before, owning guns is not a freedom, guns are weapons not a right
Debate Round No. 2


Whether it's the 18th century or not is irrelevant. The founding fathers made the constitution so that it would always apply, even today. What's important here is the detail of the tyranny. Besides, what you say about me being unmatched to the military is untrue, it's a strange sort of opposite. The United States government is what is no match for the military, as I'm not they're the ones fighting the military, not me.

Banning guns isn't going to make it harder for criminals to get them, since a gun ban is a law, which I'm not sure if you heard, but CRIMINALS ALREADY DON'T FOLLOW THEM. So you're creating a law to protect yourself from someone who won't follow it. You're like a porcupine begging to have its quills removed so that it may feel protected from a bear, which means you're disarming yourself to protect yourself from people who are armed.

As for Australia, I'm actually baffled that there hasn't been a mass shooting there. Their gun laws just make them sitting ducks, just waiting to get holes poked in them. I'm not sure that you live in America, but people here are very afraid, and I would literally have to chase them to be able to hit them with a bat. There is no way 10 people would attack me at once. And I think for everyone to have a gun is a good idea. That would make it so that there is no such thing as a soft target. Let me explain.

A soft target is an area where you can go under the perception that no one is armed. So when a dude walks in with a gun and starts plugging children at a school for example, there is nobody to there's no one to shoot the dude before he kills everyone in the room.

I do understand the power of a gun, and I know that it commands respect, and as someone who, unlike you, has fired many guns in their lifetime, knows more about ballistics and the inner workings of different firearms, as well as where to shoot to kill on animals and humans, think it's safe to say that I can tell you that guns are much weaker than you may think.

To explain, let me tell you, it all matters on which caliber you use, and the shape of your bullet. In the movies, a 5.56 rifle will blow your arm clean off. In real life, it will likely pass right through due to its velocity and shape. A Kimber pistol chambered in .45 ACP firing hollow points will be much more effective as a "killer's weapon."

As for your response to the quote, yes, actually, you are given the right to own any weapon.


I think 200+ years are very relevant in the changing of history, by that argument it's okay to own slaves. The founding fathers made the consitution so it could be changed or amended as the times changed. Are you suggesting the miltary is going to turn on the government? I fully support giving trained soilders guns to use in wars, but their is no indication they .will turn agoanst our government. And I don't like our current government, I'm libertarian in every issue besides gun rights.

Banning guns is going to make it harder for criminals to get them, even if a criminal is intent on getting a gun it will be very difficult for a criminal to obtain a gun, unlke America were they can easily get it. I'm suggesting we get rid of guns, and ban them, instead of just banning them. Your definition of a ban(going to use alcohol as an example, not arguing for the ban of alcohol) is making alcohol illegal, but not closing down bars, liquor stores, etc., my definition of a ban on alcohol is banning it, closing all places people buy alcohol, and arresting moon shiners and other illegal alcohol producers.

The point I'm trying to make with Australia is, there haven't been any mass shootings beacuse they are no guns, and soft spots are irrelevant beacuse they only apply if someone had a gun, but no one has a gun, so there are no soft spots.

You go on to talk about how different guns are different levels of deadly and you presume that I'm dumb enough to think movies have an accurate portrayal of guns, about the different levels of leathality I've designed an experiment, take a human skull(not of a living person obviously, but also recently dead so it's still as strong) or something that is equally as likely to stop a bullet. Then take the gun/bullet combination your testing and shoot at it from 1 foot away(beacuse within a foot you might as well just have a knife) and if after shooting the skull from a foot away there's no hole in it, it's legal, hole in skull=illegal.

In this case I take the right to not dying as a greater human right as owning any weapon, and by that logic I should be allowed to own a nuke.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by WaffleWaffleton 2 years ago
We live in a government that won't protect you or me. If you want to be defenseless, that's fine by me, but don't come bitching to me when you get shot. Actually, do come bitching to me. I want to say "I told you so."
Posted by ImRightAndYoureLeft 2 years ago
Clarification- why I said right to not die I meant right to not be murdered
No votes have been placed for this debate.