Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

Handguns and semi automatic rifle should be banned with a few exceptions

Finished

The voting period has ended

After not so many votes, surprise surprise...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
The Uk banned handguns and semi automatic rifles and experienced a marked drop in violent crime for many years after the bans
Round 1
Published:
I'm not here to debate whether gun ownership is a right . it isn't . The second amendment is obsolete and ironically never did anything but give states the power to form national guards ... my point is simple strict gun control is good policy  the stricter the laws the less problems gun cause, guns are tools like cars, if a person needs a gun they must show cause register and license we have like 100s of studies to show that stricter laws save lives, it might not necessary to outright handguns and semi automatic rifles but all guns need better regulations https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives
Published:
Why should the guns be banned? Regulating guns and controlling who gets to use them isn't outright banning them. Be clear on the exact policy you want to alter things to please.
Round 2
Published:
I will clarify , I am not for banning all guns , just the bad ones , for example 2/3 of all violent homicides in the usa are committed with handguns and we cant ban all rifles nor should we, rifles are used in relatively few homicides, semi automatic rifles tah accept high capacity magazines are different in their capacity  to do harm and are often used in mass shootings 
"According to the most recently updated (as of 2018) FBI data for 2016, the year referenced in the Breitbart article, 10,372 of the 15,318 murders in the United States were committed with firearms. Handguns were the most common type of firearm used in 6,762 cases. In 2,891 cases, the type of gun was not reported to the FBI or was listed as “other” while in 1,853 instances, the weapon was not identified or was listed as “other.”
It’s unlikely that a total of only 374 murders in the U.S. (a figure since revised to 300) were committed with rifles in 2016, given the fact that in more than 4,000 cases the weapon or type of gun was not specified in the UCR. What is clear from the figures, however, is that handguns are by far the most-used murder weapon, probably because they are easier to transport and conceal. Phillip Cook, Terry Sanford Professor Emeritus of Public Policy Studies at Duke University, told us:"...https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/four-times-more-stabbed-than-rifles-any-kind/
  
"
That figure is off-target. In 2017, 46% of all murders were committed with handguns, federal data show. Firearms were used in more than 70% of all homicides, however. And in at least two-thirds of those cases, the firearm was a handgun, making them by far the most common murder weapon."
Firearms were used to commit 73% of all murders in 2017, FBI data show. And in at least 64% of those cases, the firearm was a handgun.
  

"The deadliest mass shootings in recent history have had one thing in common: the perpetrator used an assault rifle.
Why it matters: These weapons possess an incredible amount of killing power, and amplify the destructive will of the person who carries out an attack. Nine people died and 27 were injured in a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio in an attack that lasted 32 seconds. The killer used an AR-15 style assault rifle.
  • Since 1999, there have been 115 mass shootings (defined below) in which 941 people were killed and 1,431 were injured.
  • Of those 115 attacks, 32 — just over a quarter — involved semi-automatic rifles. But those attacks accounted for 40% of all deaths and 69% of all injuries.
  • Since 2017, 12 of the 31 mass shootings involved assault rifles — which caused 39% of the deaths and 92% of the injuries.
  • That includes the Las Vegas massacre — which alone accounts for almost 40% of all mass shooting injuries since 1999. The perpetrator of that shooting used over 20 assault rifles during that attack.
About the data: This chart uses Mother Jones' dataset on mass shootings, which tracks the events since 1982. Our analysis is focused on shootings since 1999 — the year Columbine took place.
Published:
Ambiguity and Impossibility to reconcile Pro's 'do's' with his 'don'ts'

I will clarify , I am not for banning all guns , just the bad ones , for example 2/3 of all violent homicides in the usa are committed with handguns and we cant ban all rifles nor should we,
- Pro R2

Semi-automatic is one of the most basic type of gun. A totally non-automatic rifle is the type where after each shot you need to pull a lever and maybe even clean it out after each session of shooting.

machine gun is a military weapon capable of fully automatic fire. That is, the weapon continues to fire until it runs out of ammunition, so long as the trigger is pulled down. In the United States and elsewhere around the world, these weapons are likely to only be found on a battlefield [source: Violence Policy Center].
semi-automatic weapon, on the other hand, could be described as a civilian version of a military machine gun, one that is less capable of rapid fire. Although the firearm automatically reloads, a shooter must pull the trigger separately in order to fire another round. Semi-automatic weapons are typically pistols, rifles and shotguns, including the AK-47 and AR-15 rifles, the UZI submachine guns, and MAC-10 machine pistols. These firearms are often referred to as "assault weapons," based on their rapid-fire capability. Gun rights advocates have taken issue with the term, however, arguing that it only applies to fully automatic, "spray firing" weapons [source: Violence Policy Center].

The semi-automatic gun is the gun where automatic fire isn't an option. You do have an 'in between' gun that is usually called an assault weapons etc. AK47 is such a weapon. These have a kind of setting/switch that lets you toggle between firing as long as you hold down the button to perhaps 3-bullet bursts (AKA 3-Round bursts) as well as full machine-automatic style.

That said, the gun industry’s traditional definition of an “assault rifle” is a weapon the military generally uses and has “select fire capabilities,” or the capability to switch between semi-automatic or a fully automatic mode. However, the civilian AR-15s do not have the select fire capabilities, only semi-automatic settings, so the firearms industry insists they are not an actual assault rifle or assault weapon.


At the moment, Pro is saying they don't want ordinary guns banned, just dangerous ones. Bearing in mind that both handguns (which are a nickname for semi-automatic guns and pistols) and semi-automatic rifles are actually the ordinary type that don't fire rapidly, it follows that Pro is conceding their resolution to be extreme.

===

Feasibility of banning guns today in the US

Guns have been 'banned' in experiments before, the most notable is one in Chicago.

"I think one of the things we don't want to do is try to create laws that won't stop these types of things from happening," Sanders said Monday. "I think if you look to Chicago where you had over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes last year they have the strictest gun laws in the country. That certainly hasn't helped there."

Pointing to Chicago to suggest that gun laws don't work is not a new talking point — Trump claimed Chicago had "the toughest gun laws in the United States" in a 2016 presidential debate; his fellow Republican candidate Chris Christie likewise pointed to Chicago as a place with high crime despite tight gun laws.

"I think one of the things we don't want to do is try to create laws that won't stop these types of things from happening," Sanders said Monday. "I think if you look to Chicago where you had over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes last year they have the strictest gun laws in the country. That certainly hasn't helped there."

Pointing to Chicago to suggest that gun laws don't work is not a new talking point — Trump claimed Chicago had "the toughest gun laws in the United States" in a 2016 presidential debate; his fellow Republican candidate Chris Christie likewise pointed to Chicago as a place with high crime despite tight gun laws.

While tough gun laws and the idea of ridding the world of guns may be appealing at first, one must notice that the resolution of this debate is intentionally vague on the state, country and/or location and nature of the ban. Banning generally means literally removing it from people's possession overnight. This would, in the US which is where Pro seems to be basing the resolution's application, mean that only the criminals have guns. A major issue with banning guns, as opposed to simply controlling who gets hold of them, is that the 'good guys' end up powerless to stop the 'bad guys' in unforeseen circumstances.

There are many countries in the world, many states in the US and many different levels of gun control vs gun rights. This resolution is so vague on where exactly the ban is supposed to be enacted that Pro even could try and twist it to be in Japan, which still doesn't have a gun ban but has the closest thing to it in how regiments its gun control is. UK and South Korea have an equivalent of 'gun ban' since the lisense for a hunting gun is basically non existent and they like their cops to be unarmed in general. In the US, the cops have guns, that would be not just unfair but and outright spit in the face of the populace as a core Constitutional value of theirs is to have the general populace as armed as the government's authorities over them:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

Nowhere in Pro's case does it outline respecting this core US value. It also is ridiculous to take guns away from the police if the criminals they'll be handing usually have guns. Therefore, here and now it's best to keep guns until a very slow and gradual gun control implementation scheme ever makes gun bans even feasible to bring up and think about.
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Added:
this debate is not about whether gun ownership is a right that was clearly stated to include that is to include an off topic subject that has not merit to this debate and is irrelevant
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
yes and they started to got back up only after the conservatives cut police spending before that there was a steady drop every year for 15 years under labour
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
Gun Violence went down in the UK... but every other violent crime has spiked since then.
#6
Added:
--> @SirAnonymous
i have been accused of worse
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
You must be billsands from DDO.
https://www.debate.org/billsands/
#4
Added:
i cant get into billbard! but they said its okay for me to have one account so its this one
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
It could be billbatard's evil/nice cousin ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
#2
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
Where have I seen that profile pic before? Oh yeah, a billbatard alt account.
#1
No votes yet