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

Should semi-automatics be outlawed?

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  
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: 5/31/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 114761
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




There is no need to bear semi-automatic weapons for any civilian purpose. Look at other countries for example, such as Canada, and think of how many times school shootings have happened there compared to the USA. And there is no need for "self-defense" with a semi-automatic weapon.


First off, we need to define what semi-automatic means for those who don't know.
Semi-automatic guns are those that only fires a bullet when the trigger is pulled, and performs all steps necessary to prepare it to fire again. Which means that most pistols, rifles, and other such firearms fall in this category, meaning that the only guns that aren't included in the ban would be certain shotguns, which can still do a lot of damage.

Now for your argument itself: First off, America can't compare mass shootings with other countries, like Canada, due to us allowing the public to have guns in the first place. Sure, it does decrease gun murder rates, but you will need proof that it decreases murder rates in general in order to prove your claim. So far, you are only talking about shootings, which of course isn't going to happen in countries where guns are mostly, if not entirely, banned. But stabbings, acid attacks, bombs, and people driving cars over people can still occur.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, America can be compared by mass shootings with Canada because the Canadian government has not outlawed all guns from the public.
Continuing, it would drastically decrease the murder rate in general. In 2016, the most common murder weapon used was a handgun. Around 7 100 people were murdered with it in 2016.
In addition, yes, of course, stabbings, acid attacks, bombs can still happen; however, it is much more easy for the criminal to acquire a semi-automatic weapon, which is why all the school shootings are just that, shootings, not acid attacks, bombs, or stabbings.
Finally, of course, as you have previously stated, shootings are not likely to happen in countries where guns are mostly banned, which is exactly why the USA needs to ban these semi-automatics weapons.



You're not proving anything with your murder statistic there. Implying that those 7,100 victims (including 3,077 you haven't included) wouldn't have died is a false assumption. Those victims could have easily been stabbed, strangled, or ran over by the criminals. Heck, if you want statistics, the Department of Justice found that generally gun violence has been decreasing ever since 1993. ( )
Secondly, there has been school bombings before, and the removal of guns could potentially see a rise in bombings. Removing the weapon from a criminal only makes the criminal chose another weapon. Also, in terms of a weapon that can easily be acquired, automobiles are far easier to get.
And once again, you are repeating yourself. You aren't giving any statistical proof that crime rates decrease due to countries banning guns. You are only proving that no guns = decrease gun homicides, which is true but those shootings can translate into other crimes.
Debate Round No. 2


The statistics you provided are out of date. It only goes to 2011, which is excluding the 142 school shootings since 2012. In 2015 alone, there were 294 mass shootings in 274 days. When must the killing stop?
Your entire argument about how taking away guns could see a rise in school bombings is very much illogical. If that were true, there would be just as many school bombings in Canada, or the United Kingdom, as there are shootings in the USA. But there isn't, and there are no school shootings, do you want to know why? Because Canada and the United Kingdom have outlawed semi-automatics for civilians!
Also, your argument about automobiles is very illogical as well... for the same reason as there would be just as many people driving cars into schools as there are criminals shooting up schools in the USA in countries that have banned semi-automatics, but there isn't.


And your argument is ignoring the fact that we have a larger population than both Canada and the UK's population combined! The US has a population of 325.7 million (in 2017). Compare that to UK's population of 66.6 million and Canada's 35.1 million, and you can see why our numbers would be higher on average. It is like comparing the earnings of McDonald's to a Mom & Pop's shops.

Secondly, you forgot to mention that mass shootings statistic includes shootings where no one dies. (Source:

Thirdly, a criminal would bomb a school, not drive a car into it. That part of my argument was focused on murder rates in general. My entire argument was focused on my belief that removing guns WON'T DECREASE THE CRIME RATE! And so far, you have given no proof to go against my belief. Instead, you focus too much on comparing current numbers instead of looking at trends, like crime rates pre and post gun ban.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by asta 3 years ago

I don't think your claim is accurate and I won't believe it unless you have a reputable source.

People should have a semi automatic weapon in order to defend themselves against multiple attackers at once. It is more convenient then a pistol, which you would have to reload.
Posted by AKMath 3 years ago
No-one realizes. Guns save 0.5-3.0 million lives a year!!!
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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