Should America ban the AR-15
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Many people claim the the AR-15 is a dangerous gun and should be banned in order to recuce the amount of mass shootings. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic carbine style rifle. A large amount of the people who support banning the gun get that statement wrong. I am against the ban as I do not see any strong reason to authorise a ban on this firearm.
- The AR-15 chambering is a .223 (5.56 x 45mm) which is very common in hunting and target shooting.
- There is a common misconception that the AR in AR-15 stands for assault rifle. This is incorrect. The AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which is the company that manufactures the weapon.
- The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. Not a fully-automatic as some people believe. Fully-automatic rifles have been banned in America following the federal assault weapons ban of. 1994
“AR-15s have been the firearm of choice in many mass shootings in America.”
“it is an effective weapon. It is accurate, reliable, versatile...”
“The benefits and legitimate uses provided by the AR-15 to humanity are not unique to the AR-15.”
Welcome to both of you! I will wrap a little feedback into my RfD for your benefit. I will include (FB) when the note is for feedback and not part of my RfD
Arguments
R1
Cons primary argument is that the AR15 is little different than many other weapons, and does have other uses.
Pros starting argument is that the AR-15 is particularly used in a lot of mass shootings, and it’s effectiveness at killing people. Pro makes the case that other weapons can be used for legitimate roles that the AR-15 is currently used for.
So far, this undermines pros point on legitimate use, and shows a specific harm that warrants a ban.
R2:
Con points out that most gun deaths are not AR-15s and this I feel undermined pros argument from how widely it is used.
I did not feel cons argument that just because it is effective doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be bad. First it appears to concede that it’s more effective than other weapons, and it ignores that pros argument isn’t effectiveness - but effectiveness at killing people that is at issue.
Pros hammers home his point that the legitimate usages of the gun can be replaced with other guns. He argues that if the gun con cites is just as dangerous - it should be banned too - I felt this was particularly good (FB: Con left himself open to this attack by talking solely about the AR-15 remember the ban pro must support could be larger than AR-15. Pro could have also argued for a broader and wider ban if he had desired.)
(FB Note: this felt mostly like a rehash of R1 by pro - I think okay to rebut immediately preceding arguments in this type of policy debate unless otherwise stated. It makes for a nicer flow)
R3:
Con continues to hammer the usage of the AR-15 claiming it’s not used in most mass shootings, he also asks about other weapons to be banned - how many should be banned?
I don’t find slippery slopes particularly good arguments, but con does point out the potential issues with where you draw the line.
Pro points out deaths in Las Vegas and effectiveness of the weapon, and mostly reiterates the previous rounds, on points I have already mostly discounted.
What pro doesn’t do, is argue an effective case as to what impact banning the gun would have. This is important as pro has to convince me that there is benefit to banning the gun.
In my view pro gets me most of the way there by stressing the particular effectiveness, and how good it as killing - together with negating the possible downsides.
At this point, though, cons argument that pro didn’t counter is that a ban won’t have any benefit. However - pros main argument that con didn’t counter is that there isn’t really any harm.
Pro was in the better position to win here, but didn’t really address pros final concerns head on (banning all weapons).
Because of this I both sides pulled me in their direction - but neither pulled me far enough to their side to award a win.
Thus, arguments are tied.
Sources:
Pro makes good use of sources to boost his warrant. The guns and ammo link, and global news link confirm the main crux of his argument which in my view put these out of the realm of contention. His mass shooting ar15 links from USA today in round 1 were particularly good. This is a good usage of links to prove that what you’re saying is true, and made it harder for con to contest the basics - as a result I felt pros sources bolstered his warrant on key points.
Con on the other hand did not offer sources.
Sources to pro.
First- it is nice to see some new people debating. Second- I admire the quick, concise, easy-to-digest nature of this debate- bullet-points, counters, done. I'd like to see more debates from both participants.
Con identifies a genuine benefit (less mass shootings) and argues that the suggested policy will not achieve that benefit because the policy focuses on one unremarkable type of rifle.
Pro takes two approaches to this argument that undermine each other: AR-15 are sufficiently unremarkable that their functionality may be easily replaced by other weapons but also AR-15s are more common to mass shootings and more lethal than handguns. In R1, Pro argues that AR-15s main harm is perception, in R2, lethality. At the end of R2, Pro concedes that other gun types are more are lethal and argues that perhaps more gun types should be banned- essentially conceding that AR-15s do not merit special legislation. In R3, Pro argues that Con's perception argument is unsubstantiated, undermining his opening argument ("Many experts have speculated that this is due to the perception....").
Con's slippery slope in R3 doesn't help the case, but Con essentially wins this argument by concession.
Con also argues that AR-15s are effective for legal purposes- sport, home defense. Pro counters that AR-15s are overpowered for such purposes and that the costs in lives outweigh the benefits of sport and home defense. Con makes no counter to this argument except to say effectiveness alone is no cause for ban. Pro wins this argument.
Neither side presented a particularly formidable case (it was a short debate, after all) but Con wins the edge on overall arguments because Con did not undermine his own argument. Much of the debate hinged on what singles out AR-15s for banning and Pro needed a more direct response. If Pro had set out a stronger argument for increased AR-15 lethality, I think Pro wins this debate.
Sources to Pro. Although Pro's sources were relatively weak (there are good govt. and scientific papers on this topic), Con desperately need some sources. Con had way better statistics but killed the effect by failure to source- AR-15 facts, Steven Crowder, 60% of mass shootings hand guns, etc. The lack of sources weakens readers confidence in those stats considerably: if handguns do 80% of killing but also kill 19 times more than rifles, what guns are killing the other 15%? Con seemed to have better research but failed to show the work.
Spelling & Conduct fine. I'm an American who curses the 2nd Amendment's impact on my society regularly so my bias would tend to Pro. Nevertheless, I think Con maintained the slight advantage in this debate.
But without my AR-15 how am I going to keep the king of England from waltzing into my house and doing whatever he wants
Sounds like a good idea. I don't have time now, but maybe later?
I don’t buy any of that. We should debate US death penalty sometime- maybe California’s recent stay.
It's cheap, it saves lives and an eye for an eye is a proportional means of justice.
Ok- name 3 benefits to NZ for such a change in policy. Don’t forget that NZ takes nonviolence as seriously as any nation on earth
I want New Zealand to bring back the death penalty for murder so this guy can get killed painfully.
NZ abolished death as a penalty for murder in 1957.
I hope the Christchurch shooter gets the death penalty. Lethal injection is too nice. He deserves more pain.
Go research how many people have actually been killed by AR-15's...
I did on Saturday. If I remember right the 2016 estimate was less than 200 people. I couldn't get an estimate for 2016 mass shootings but as far as I could n tell none of the highly visible mass shootings involved AR-15s in 2016.
The reasoning behind banning AR-15's is because they are considered dangerous...correct?
I think it is well established that any guns are dangerous. Brendo's question is why are AR-15s singled out particularly. I think Brendo is correct that the AR-15 just looks meaner and more militaristic than other guns that actually kill more people annually but also because AR-15s have been used to perpetrate some of the most infamous mass shootings. I probably think these causes are more consequential than Brendo does but let's agree that any gun ban should have a more rational basis than perception.
My point to you was that comparing species (AR-15) to category (cars, knives) is not particularly informational: it doesn't really tell you whether AR-15s kill more people than other rifles.
Saying that you will wait until our human(and primate before human) propensity for murder magically goes away is essentially a confession that you have no plan for gun safety. I asked you what safety measures gun owners would be willing to support in an effort to reduce gun violence and you responded don't take away my guns. How do we find a middle ground if the dialogue is always only polarities set in stone?
The debate is about banning AR-15. The reasoning behind banning AR-15's is because they are considered dangerous...correct?
Go research how many people have actually been killed by AR-15's...
I do not support any gun regulations because I feel that doesn't address the issue. The issue is not the guns, the issue is the people. THe human heart. Getting rid of guns, stricter gun controls, etc doesn't get to the heart of the problem-- a person's desire to kill/injure another person. THAT, is the problem.
As long as Man (Woman) have the desire/propensity to harm/kill another person, do not remove my ability to defend myself (take away my guns).
"Let's keep some perspective folks. AR-15's, while they certainly make for eye-catching headlines, are not the greatest danger.
In 2016, over 40K people were killed in vehicle accidents. While I don't know the exact stats, my gut tells me the number of people killed by AR-15's is MUCH MUCH LOWER (I say that facetiously)."
40,000 Americans (1.25 million people) were killed in car accidents in 2016. An apt comparison would be 34,000 Americans were killed by gun. Just picking out one type of rifle and comparing to overall car accidents make no sense.
"In 2016, more people were killed by KNIVES than by AR-15s (according to the FBI)."
True, but that's like saying more people were killed by bicycles than by Kia Rios (the most accident prone brand of car in 2016). It's true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Kia Rios are therefore safer than bicycles. Are we trying to identify ways to improve safety or are we just providing cover so that Kia doesn't ask why its product kils more people, so govts don't ask why Kia's product kill more people? Now apply to AR-15s
"While I respect the "March for our Lives" movement, etc the fact remains, a student is more likely to be killed in a vehicle ON THE WAY TO SCHOOL than they are by a school shooting...."
Actually, that statistic is close to tipping. 2017 was probably the first year in a century that US gun deaths exceeded auto deaths in the US in a century. The point is that 50 years of government regulation reduced an Americans chance of dying in a car by roughly 50%, autonomous vehicles could bring the present stat down another 90% by 2050. Americans have a plan for traffic safety. What is our plan for gun safety? What regulations would American gun owners support that might bring gun deaths down?
Let's keep some perspective folks. AR-15's, while they certainly make for eye-catching headlines, are not the greatest danger.
In 2016, over 40K people were killed in vehicle accidents. While I don't know the exact stats, my gut tells me the number of people killed by AR-15's is MUCH MUCH LOWER (I say that facetiously).
In 2016, more people were killed by KNIVES than by AR-15s (according to the FBI).
While I respect the "March for our Lives" movement, etc the fact remains, a student is more likely to be killed in a vehicle ON THE WAY TO SCHOOL than they are by a school shooting....
Christchurch is probably big news in Australia right now.
I predict this debate will be good.
If you have a taser, you can use it much more freely against an intruder, since the intruder won't die. A thick jacket conducts electricity so I think a taser would work in stunning an intruder with a gun.
I do not know much about the NRA so I cannot answer your question about that. As for tasers, they are not as effective as firearms. By pointing a gun at a person, the person on the other end should consider the danger. A taser does not have that same effect and the person would not react the same. A large amount of gun incidents in America do not actually involve the person pulling the trigger. They just point the gun at them until they go away. Also, there are multiple times when a taser would not work at all when deployed. Something as simple as a thick jacket would prevent a taser from being able to shock the person.
Why can't the NRA develop tasers instead of guns? Tasers are safer while providing comparable protection. They are also more profitable in the long term since tasers are more expensive.