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

Semi-Automatic Weapons

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
thatnebraksafarmer has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 110415
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I saw your argument, thatnebraskafarmer, and you did make the point of mental health issues. I definitely agree with having background checks on people like that. But what I don't agree with is your stance on keeping Semi-Automatic weapons entirely. What do you need with a semi-automatic weapon? The point of having a Semi-Automatic weapon is to shoot more bullets than a pistol or regular rifle at once, assisting in what guns help people do best. Kill.

In the Las Vegas Shooting, hundreds were injured and dozens died that day by his semi-automatic weapons with many modifications like the bump stock. And you may say, along with others, that guns don't kill people people kill people. But the fact is, is that you can't kill 58 people in 9 minutes with a pistol, or regular rifle. So I propose that we leave the semi-automatic and automatic weapons to the military, trained men and women who know how to use it safety, and are in a controlled, disciplined, environment.


I will agree that semi-automatics do make killing easier, in some cases it is beneficial, but in the wrong hands it is detrimental. In your second paragraph you mentioned bump stocks, using the correct technique you can accomplish essentially the same thing they do, all it takes is about 10 minutes or practice.
Your "fact" in your second paragraph is completely false considering most pistols are semi-automatic and I'm guessing by regular rifle you mean a bolt action. Most bolt action rifles are a higher caliber and can do more damage with 1 shot over a lot longer distance compared to a regular .223 or 5.56 ar-15 round. Considering your proposal about leaving the semi and fully automatic weapons to the military, pretty much all fully automatics are already in the hands of the military I don't know what your proposal consists of, other than taking practically all firearms other than bolt action rifles, revolvers, single shot guns, and pump shotguns out of the hands of the hands of law abiding citizens. If law abiding gun owners were a problem it would be a bad situation, considering in 2012 there were 327,000,000 legally owned and obtained guns in America.
Debate Round No. 1


(Please rephrase the last sentence, what are you accomplishing? Are you somehow accomplishing rapid machine gun like fire with a finger that can press a trigger that fast?)
What do you mean making killing easier is beneficial, except in the military? What will a civilian need with a gun that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute? (With various modifications) Unless we're being invaded, there's only one real need for the amount of people you're able to kill. And a pistol, semi automatic or not, is limited on ammo, making it to where you have to take breaks in your firing to reload much more frequently. I should've mentioned the danger of modifications.

But seriously, with a bolt action rifle, you cannot wound hundreds of people in less than 9 minutes. (Las Vegas shooting) It can't get out that many bullets, and is what I would be okay with having. Yes, it will do more damage to the person individually, but to a crowd of people, not so much. The people in the Las Vegas shooting who were shot and weren't killed will have to deal with a bullet or two inside their system. How would the Las Vegas shooting be different if he didn't have mods and multiple other military style weapons, how would the Parkland Shooting have gone if that guy didn't have an AR-15?

Lastly, how many people are trained to use a gun properly, and are regularly checked and disciplined? That's why the Second Amendment includes the phrase, "A well regulated militia." Not just anyone, but an organized group, like the Police, the Army, or the Marines. These are people that are regularly checked, regularly trained, and they keep the public safe. We can't just have any person who can pass a background check and has a little bit of gun experience roam wild with a weapon that can kill dozens of people in a short amount of time. I'm not saying take every gun away from the public, I'm just saying that not just anyone should have those kinds of weapons.


I'll answer the first question about making killing easier more beneficial, being as I live and work on a farm and I have coyotes trying to kill calves most farmers and ranchers will tell you an AR-15 is the gun for the job. It makes it easier to protect ourselves and livestock. Also if someone is breaking in I am going to make sure they don't walk out alive, especially if they are threatening me or the life of a loved one. Most people won't be able to fire hundreds of rounds a second without the help of modifications, but it all goes back to how you want to use those modifications. The only place I see those coming to use is if you want to have fun at the range or whatever. Pistols are not going to be limited on ammo you can buy just as big of magazines as any ar-15 magazines, and either way you have to take breaks to reload no matter the weapon. They only way the modifications become dangerous is when they person using them decides to use them for bad. Pistols can still do damage, look at Columbine, did they have ar-15s, no.
As for bolt action rifles many people don't think about it but bullets don't stop when they hit one person they keep going through especially with bigger rounds. As for your comment about the Parkland shooting he could've used a mini 14, which is the same caliber of bullets and in the same size of magazines as an ar-15, it would've ended the same way. If a person wants to cause harm they will.
Not everyone has access to those guns, that's what background checks are for. To keep bad people from buying any weapons. I would most likely back adding something to background checks that cover a more mental aspect.
Debate Round No. 2


First off, don't you think a warning shot would be enough to scare someone off your property, or scare an animal away from your livestock? I don't know of many killers that go around to people's country homes just to kill them. Most of these these situations you speak of are hypothetical and are without sources other than personal experience. I agree that you need something to protect your livestock and your family, but not a military style weapon. Plus, those kinds of "Pistols" that can shoot at those kinds of speeds and have that magazine capabilities are pistols because of the legal definition. Numerous states and districts ban high capacity magazines such as California, Hawaii, and D.C. If you don't know, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right or logical. It used to be legal to count a slave as 60% of a human, and recently, it was legal to sell people's debt crashing the DOW.

(A rebuttal to your mini-14 argument: Yeah, you can do the same thing with a mini-14 but with more damage than an ar-15, but your point falls short when the mini-14 is also a semi-automatic rifle, one of the firearms I'm calling to ban.)

If you can't fire hundreds of rounds without the help of modifications, and the only way you can see them coming to use is fun, then you shouldn't have them. Unless it's going to the military or other controlled environment, then they should be banned. A lot of these guns are just remakes of M-16, and other military firearms that keep finding loopholes around gun control laws. Modifications is one of them, and by stopping the sale and usage of them, we lower the body count in possible future shootings.

On your Columbine argument, they didn't have AR-15s, but they did have an automatic weapon. (Intratec TEC-DC9) Which is more dangerous than an AR-15, considering it's a sub-machine gun.

And lastly, background checks definitely need to still be a main component in gun control, I agree with you on that. Sadly though, background checks don't always work. The shooter in Las Vegas passed present background check laws, and had no sign of mental instability. (AK pistol example.)

Guns of Columbine
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 20cwells 3 years ago
Heckin goal post moving JEDBartlet
Posted by 20cwells 3 years ago
Heckin goal post moving JEDBartlet
Posted by JEDBartlet 3 years ago
Thank you, but what I just tried to convey is that the weapon specifications I was just talking about was too generalized before. " And a pistol, semi automatic or not, is limited on ammo, making it to where you have to take breaks in your firing to reload much more frequently."
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
The majority of pistols are semi-automatic also against a home invader or tyanical government I would rather not have to shoot and then reload after every shot.
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.