Instigator / Pro
10
1337
rating
26
debates
9.62%
won
Topic

No one needs an ar 15

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
12
Sources points
4
8
Spelling and grammar points
2
4
Conduct points
4
4

With 4 votes and 18 points ahead, the winner is ...

TheRealNihilist
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
28
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description
~ 165 / 5,000

Society doesn't benefit from the idea that you have a right to a military style semi automatic rifle here play with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2TE8lhMiFk

Round 1
Pro
In societies like Singapore and Israel and to a great extent Switzerland they have well regulated militias young men are drafted sometime young women too, they are issued military weapons and when they return to being a civilian they return the military weapon to the military, in Switzerland they may take the weapon home if it is deactivated to fire only in semi auto and then they are given only 50 bullets no sane society lets untrained unvetted yokels run around society with military grade weapons with license, it is a recipe for disaster as we see every day on tv
Con
Let me lay out what the debate is about because my opponent didn't do so.

No one = No human.

Need = a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism

Ar 15 = lightweight semi-automatic rifle based on the ArmaLite AR-15 design.

Just to make it simple. The title states no one needs an Ar-15. All I have to do is demonstrate 1 person is needs an Ar-15 to fulfill my burden of proof.

Military
P1: A country should be able to defend themselves
P2: Using weapons is one way of doing so
Conclusion: The Ar-15 should be accessible to the military

I don't think I need to expand on this so my opponent can rebut my premises. 

Responsible usage
P1: People who are no threat should be free to do what they like
P2: This can be responsibly using lethal weapons
Conclusion: The Ar-15 should be accessible to citizens

Also pretty simple.

Constitution
P1: The US abides by the constitution
P2: The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to use firearms
Conclusion: People who need an Ar-15 are allowed to use it in the US

Very simple as well.

Given how short my arguments are, I will be rebutting the claims brought forward.

Society doesn't benefit from the idea that you have a right to a military style semi automatic rifle here play with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2TE8lhMiFk
From this I can gather society shouldn't have weapons. The link is to a weapon review. Nothing I found demonstrate this claim and since this was in the description of the debate not in my opponent's argument I think I am okay to simply not even bother arguing against it. My second reason would be that my opponent didn't explain why it wasn't a benefit which is a problem in understanding what Pro means and me to even make an rebuttal given there really isn't too much there.
In societies like Singapore and Israel and to a great extent Switzerland they have well regulated militias young men are drafted sometime young women too, they are issued military weapons and when they return to being a civilian they return the military weapon to the military, in Switzerland they may take the weapon home if it is deactivated to fire only in semi auto and then they are given only 50 bullets no sane society lets untrained unvetted yokels run around society with military grade weapons with license, it is a recipe for disaster as we see every day on tv
1) Not making an argument against no one having guns instead making an argument against untrained individuals.
2) Supporting the claim that retired vets should have weapons thus going against the Pro stance you have which is "no one needs an ar 15"

I haven't found a single argument in favor of their side so I am left with well pointing out problems not rebutting the argument brought forward because there was none about the debate at hand. 

Over to you PaulVerliane

Round 2
Pro
a military style weapon a semi automatic rifle that looks and functions like a military rifle save one factor fully automatic mode are just as dangerous as assault rifles the military uses, you can burst fire a semi automatic military style rifle just as easily as full auto if you have experience and semi automatic rifles are just as accurate more accurate than select fire weapons they use the same ammunition same power and penetration as standard military ammo and they do the same damage they need to be banned or heavily restricted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-style_semi-automatic_firearms#2019_ban
Con
Thanks PaulVerliane for replying.

a military style weapon a semi automatic rifle that looks and functions like a military rifle save one factor fully automatic mode are just as dangerous as assault rifles the military uses
Padding to the burden that I don't think Pro has fulfilled.
you can burst fire a semi automatic military style rifle just as easily as full auto if you have experience and semi automatic rifles are just as accurate more accurate than select fire weapons they use the same ammunition same power and penetration as standard military ammo and they do the same damage
You stated that semi auto rifles are as accurate as fully auto rifles but that is not true. You haven't given information regarding this but I will. A semi auto rifle is a tool when you pull the trigger once and a single bullet will be fired. No matter if you hold it down no more bullets will be fired until you pull the trigger again. A fully auto rifle is capable of shooting until there is no more rounds left. Given weapons are powerful and we are talking about a fully automatic rifle it would be difficult unless you are properly trained to shoot accurately. Here is a video of an experienced person not being able to completely control the fully auto feature of the weapon. 

Not all guns use the same ammunition. Here is a list of various ammo types.

I remember playing MW2 and the game told me FMJ gives the weapon a higher penetration. MW2 is more real than what you are saying. 

Just to make sure everyone understands, not one claim of mine was challenged. I await a rebuttal at this point.


Over to you PaulVerliane
Round 3
Pro
have you ever heard of one fully automatic sniper rifle? i would suppose the list is either very small or non existent, okay? so yes semi automatic rifles are more accurate than if you shoot an assault rifle on full auto or three round burst  https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-fully-automatic-sniper-rifles
https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-sniper-rifles-fully-automatic fully automatic rifles are made with the understanding they will put down supressing fire bolt or semi are made to be accurate,  if you want i can cut and paste experts sayn that but i get grief when i cut and paste so eithe read the link or expect some cut and paste proof i do have it


a civilian semi automatic rifle not only looks like  a military standard issue it take the same sort of ammunition  "the point is to use CAUTION when firing NATO spec ammo in civilian weapons, "but it can be done very easily its in no way impossible  " High pressure and possible mechanical failure of the action is possible due to high pressures of the military ammo. But the civilian spec ammo can be shot in military actions, at a slight velocity loss due to the relatively long free bore of the military weapons. Numerous manufacturers of the AR-15 offer their guns in civilian chambering using SAAMI not NATO specs. Be careful. Remember that the military ammo produces similar pressures to the civilian loads, but this is despite the free bore. They are hotter in a civilian chamber spec." http://www.shootingrangeindustries.com/nato-military-cartridge-ammunition-vs-civilian-ammo-measuring-free-bore-pressure-more/
Con
I am not going to argue against what you said last. This entire debate you haven't rebutted a single claim of mine while what I think is not sufficiently fulfilling your burden of proof. I don't see the point in spending my time arguing against your points when you don't argue against mine.