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.
A
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].
A
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.
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
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
Gun Violence went down in the UK... but every other violent crime has spiked since then.
i have been accused of worse
You must be billsands from DDO.
https://www.debate.org/billsands/
i cant get into billbard! but they said its okay for me to have one account so its this one
It could be billbatard's evil/nice cousin ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Where have I seen that profile pic before? Oh yeah, a billbatard alt account.