The Instigator
DevoutBokonist
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)
Anonymous

Ban Semi-automatic assault rifles

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
DevoutBokonist has forfeited round #4.
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: 3/1/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 742 times Debate No: 109962
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

DevoutBokonist

Pro

Why do you need assault rifles? They"ve been the cause of almost every school shooting, and there"s no reason they"re needed. In Colonial Times, the Second Amendmant did not allow every gun, and that"s before 180 round semi-automatic assault rifles existed. Why do you need a 180 round assault rifle to hunt some deers? Why can"t you just use a hunting rifle?

Con

I understand where you are coming from and it may seem that because assault rifles have been used in the majority of mass shootings. Something I find wrong with your statement is saying that assault rifles cause mass shootings. This statement is wrong because guns don't kill people, people do. You probably have heard this argument many times and it does have validity. Guns are just an object they need a person behind it to pull the trigger, they need a person to pull that trigger. A very common rebuttal to this response is "by that logic landmines don't kill people, people do, or bazookas don't kill people, people do. The first thing that is wrong with this is that a gun and a bazooka or landmine are very similar but aren't the same. With a bazooka when you shoot it you do not have entire control of who or what you hit, you maybe aiming at a crook but the explosion from the bazooka kills innocent bystanders along with it. It was not your intention to kill the innocent bystanders along with whoever you are aiming at. With a gun it is entirely dependent on the person, their intentions and abilities. Well how about misfires, true and valid but they are very rare. Therefor guns aren't the problem and people are so banning assault rifles would be pointless people will still kill each other mass shootings will still occur. Besides pistols can pretty much equal assault rifles in destruction take the Virginia Tech shooting 32 killed excluding the shooter's suicide https://en.wikipedia.org... the third deadliest mass shooting in America. What is an assault rifle anyways what particular feature on a rifle makes it an assault rifle is this an assault rifle take a ruger mini 14 vs an ar15 both guns that are semi automatic can hold a 30 round clip and have the same caliber are they both assault rifles? Is the main problem magazine size as you mentioned a 180 round magazine?
Debate Round No. 1
DevoutBokonist

Pro

First of all, thank you for joining this debate.
Now in terms of what you said, I do agree that people are part of the problem. I"m saying ban assault rifles, but I also think we should increase help for mentally ill people and people suffering depression. That said, there will always be someone that slips by the system, and that person will get a gun. There are just too many people with problems to be able to controI. I know there are things in place to stop mentally ill people from getting guns, but right now it is very easy for a mentally ill person to get a gun online or through the gun show loophole in many states. Also, though there are exceptions like the shooting you mentioned, most people will kill more people with a semi-automatic rifle rather than a pistol. Two of the biggest mass school shootings in America, Sandyhook and Stoneman Douglas school shooting, were done using semi-automatic rifles. It"s unlikely that the Parkland deputy would"ve been scared to go in and face the shooter if all the shooter had was a pistol. Also, I"m not saying this is the only reform that has to be done, but I think this would be a start.

If you wanna talk about gun reforms as a whole, I"m fine with that too
Up to you

Con

I bet that officer wouldn't have walked in even if it was an air soft gun, but I digress. Ah I understand, you want to ban assault rifles as a form of damage control. People will still hurt each other but if we just banned this we might save some lives. This argument certainly left me stumped for a day it acknowledged my main point and played around it completely. Still I might argue that an assault rifle isn't more effective in a school shooting. Mass shootings generally occur in a gun free zone meaning that the victims are unarmed. This begs the question is an assault rifle really more effective than a pistol assuming both of them have the same magazine capacity? In my opinion they would be equally effective because the victims are unarmed so the shooter can't outgun them, also it is close quarters combat and well within the effective range of a pistol so inaccuracy wouldn't be much of a factor. Pistol ammo usually 9mm weigh much less so a shooter can carry more ammo. Overall I think the reason why shooters choose AR15s as assault rifles is because of how easy and cheap it is to find a 30 round magazine compared to a 30 round magazine for a pistol. I must admit ar15s are more controllable but like I said most mass shootings take place in close quarters combat were accuracy isn't the largest factor. About how police would have an easier time dealing with a shooter, in most of the mass shootings the shooter usually surrenders or suicides anyways so they don't really engage in a fire fight with the police. Overall banning assault rifles won't save lives, but rather they would hurt law-abiding citizens who use assault rifles for self defense. Even though like in a school it is close quarters combat this is different because intruders can be armed so an assault rifle would be deadlier than pistol. At this point I think the best action to take is to make it much harder for mentally people and criminals to buy guns so better background checks and mental evaluations.
Debate Round No. 2
DevoutBokonist

Pro

Sorry it took so long to respond

Statistics prove otherwise about the effect of assault rifles on the number of mass-shootings and deaths. (Which include school shootings)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This diagram shows that their were less deaths and mass-shootings when assault rifles were banned. In terms of the thing you said about the police, I agree banning the assault rifles would not effect whether or not the police would have trouble apprehending the shooter, but if the shooter killed couldn"t kill as many people in a short amount of time, then he would be apprehended by the police before he killed as many people as he might of killed with an assault rifle. Also, I do agree there must be steps taken to stop mentally ill people from getting guns and they are part of the problem, but they are not the only part. You can"t regulate all mentally ill people. There are too many of them and many of them don"t reveal their illness until after it"s too late. There will always be someone who has their mental evaluation, goes insane, and then causes a mass shooting before his next mental evaluation. Plus, if you haven"t committed a crime yet and you have not publicly shown any signs of insanity yet, background checks would not work. I"m not saying they wouldn"t help, but they wouldn"t solve the problem completely. Also, law abiding citizens wouldn"t need to use assault rifles to protect themselves when all the enemy could get would most likely be a pistol or hunting rifle.

Con

Your data is seems legitimate but what is a mass shooting? According to the FBI, the term "mass murder" has been defined generally as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered, within one event, and in one or more locations in close geographical proximity. https://fas.org... This can be found on the second page at the start of the second paragraph. Your data displays a mass murder as 6+ people being required to count as a mass murder yet it fails to include any mass murders in the statistics that had 5 to 4 victims. This chart failing to include the actual definition of a mass murder does not disprove that the assault weapons ban did anything. Lets assume for the sake of argument that mass murders rate did decrease during the assault weapons ban. First of all correlation isn't causation just because mass murder rates decreased during the assault weapons ban doesn't mean it was the cause for it, there could be many other factors such as better mental health during the ban which would prevent much more death than a restriction on a gun. Another problem I have with the assault weapons ban is how could it practically save lives according according to Wikipedia the criteria of an assault weapon are:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

Most of the the features banned are cosmetic such as a fold/telescopic stock, pistol grip. Flash suppressors may arguably be combat effective, but banning it won't lower lethality of the weapon all it does is lower gun flash in low light situations. Grenade launchers aren't used in any mass shootings and are already banned. As for the bayonet mount someone can zip tie a knife to a gun. Most of the bans would have little practical effect the only thing that the ban did right was a magazine limit.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DevoutBokonist
I'm sorry for my incompetence
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DevoutBokonist
@biasedhuman I will now forfeit because I completely forgot
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Okay it is unfortunate that this happened but I accept.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DevoutBokonist
I'm pissed. I couldn't post anything in time because of school. Con, please let us debate the last round through comments. I'll post my final argument when you respond.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DevoutBokonist
I'm pissed. I couldn't post anything in time because of school. Con, please let us debate the last round through comments. I'll post my final argument when you respond.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
CaptainRex928
Sorry about the double comment, browser glitch
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
CaptainRex928
Repeal the full auto ban,
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
CaptainRex928
Repeal the full auto ban,
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
maxir10
I think that this argument should be a lot more specific. Also the title is misleading; by definition an assault rifle is a select-fire weapon. Also the argument that "assault rifles" were used in mass shootings is not very well chosen IMO because after some research I failed to find a recent shooting in which fully automatic assault weapons were used. In all the shootings that I read about the shooters used sports or hunting rifles or pistols.

And btw, fully automatic weapons have been banned for the general public since 1935.
This debate has 0 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.