Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Assault weapons ban in the United States

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Should citizens in the United States be banned from possessing assault weapons?

Background and context

A summary of the 1994 assault weapons ban in the United States a 2004 report to the National Institute of Justice: "Title XI, Subtitle A of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 imposed a 10-year ban on the “manufacture, transfer, and possession” of certain semiautomatic firearms designated as assault weapons (AWs). The ban is directed at semiautomatic firearms having features that appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense (examples include flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, and threaded barrels for attaching silencers). The law bans 18 models and variations by name, as well as revolving cylinder shotguns. It also has a “features test” provision banning other semiautomatics having two or more military-style features. In sum, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has identified 118 models and variations that are prohibited by the law. A number of the banned guns are foreign semiautomatic rifles that have been banned from importation into the U.S. since 1989.

The ban also prohibits most ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition (referred to as large capacity magazines, or LCMs). An LCM is arguably the most functionally important feature of most AWs, many of which have magazines holding 30 or more rounds. The LCM ban’s reach is broader than that of the AW ban because many non-banned semiautomatics accept LCMs. Approximately 18% of civilian-owned firearms and 21% of civilian-owned handguns were equipped with LCMs as of 1994.

The ban exempts AWs and LCMs manufactured before September 13, 1994. At that time, there were upwards of 1.5 million privately owned AWs in the U.S. and nearly 25 million guns equipped with LCMs. Gun industry sources estimated that there were 25 million pre-ban LCMs available in the U.S. as of 1995. An additional 4.7 million pre-ban LCMs were imported into the country from 1995 through 2000, with the largest number in 1999."

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004, and was not renewed by Congress. The fact that it was not renewed was highly contentious among the general American public and in the halls of Congress. Many continue to call for the renewal of the ban or a fresh assault weapons ban, which some hope would solve some of the problems with the first legislation. Gun rights advocates continue to oppose any ban, and the debate continues...

See Wikipedia: Federal Assault Weapons Ban for more background.

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

2nd Amendment: Is a ban consistent with the 2nd amendment of the US constitution?

[Add New]

Yes

  • The Second Amendment applies to militia's, not private ownership. "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm," (Stevens v. United States).
[Add New]

No

  • The Supreme Court has affirmed the individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. (Heller vs. District of Columbia) Delivered in 2008.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Crime: Does an assault weapons ban reduce crime and save lives?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Since the ban, there have been fewer gun fatalities. "Deaths caused by guns dropped from 38,505 in 1994 to 29,573 in 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While crime experts say the drop resulted from several factors, such as fewer gang shootings involving crack cocaine, they cite the assault weapons ban and other gun controls passed in 1993 and 1994 as among the causes"[2]
  • Police support a ban on assault weapons Police, those that have the most experience dealing with crime, are strongly in favor of gun control laws. Why is this? First, many cops have been killed by assault weapons, and these brave law enforcement officers must consistently deal with the fear that criminals they encounter will be packing assault weapons. Second, they recognize that assault weapons are used by some criminals and madmen to inflict maximum casualties. Finally, they see first hand instances in which assault weapons can be used offensively and defensively, and it is notable that they conclude, ultimately, that assault weapons should not be available to the public.
  • An assault weapons ban decreases supply and increases prices, beneficially - While it may be impossible to get rid of all assault weapons, what is possible is to decrease the supply of assault weapons. This makes them more difficult to obtain and drives up their price on the market, which makes them less attractive to prospective buyers. This all generally decreases the presence of assault weapons on the street and in crime.
[Add New]

No

  • Assault weapons banned in 1994 were not uniquely lethal Many guns that remained publicly available after the 1994 assault weapons ban were effectively as lethal as the weapons that were banned under the legislation. This is largely because simple adjustments to assault weapons allowed exemptions from the ban. And, it is clear that many of the weapons used in the most deadly massacres, such as the Columbine or Virginia Tech massacres in the United States, were not banned by the assault weapons law.
  • The 1994 assault weapons ban was ineffectual The sale of assault weapons continued beyond the 1994 ban, but with very slight modifications, such as the sawing off of muzzles, to exploit the loopholes of the ban. Therefore, there was never exactly a ban on assault weapons, but simply a shift in how the manufacturers produced them. And, despite the fact that assault weapons were still being produced and sold, there were still drops in crime and the use of assault weapons on the streets. This suggests that assault weapons were not actually the issue.
  • Knives are more deadly than assault weapons Because knives are a more common weapon of choice for criminals, particularly because they are concealable, they have led to more deaths than assault weapons. Yet, Knives aren't banned. It's important to keep the relatively low societal risks in mind.
  • An assault weapons ban encourages organized crime
  • An assault weapons ban will be subverted by blackmarkets


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Self-defense: Are assault weapons unnecessary for self-defense?

[Add New]

Yes

  • There are adequate alternatives to assault weapons for self-defense. A shotgun, pistol, or rifle are all adequate means of self-defense. These are powerful weapons with heavy destructive force. They can easily kill multiple assailants in rapid succession when used properly. If there is any concern about the ability of a gun owner to wield a shotgun or pistol properly such that they can kill multiple assailants, than they should seek enhanced training instead of an assault weapon.
  • More home-owners are killed by gun-ownership than are saved While a right to self defense exists, it is important to note that more people are accidentally killed by their own guns than are saved by them. On this account, is the possession of guns, assault weapon or other, really "self-defense"? Furthermore, assuming that gun ownership involves risks, the ownership of more deadly assault weapons may increase the risk of accidental death or mutilation.
[Add New]

No

  • Assault weapons are superior for self defense Revolver pistols typically hold 6 rounds. It is significant possibility that a person defending themselves from robbers or assailants would need more than 6 rounds, particularly if there are two or three of them. Yet, re-loading a revolver is time consuming and not a good situation to be in the face of attackers.
  • Banning semi-automatic weapons would harm small businesses. A ban on semi-automatic weapons would damage the revenue of small business.
  • Semi-automatic assault weapons are often misrepresented Semi-automatic assault weapons are weapons in which one pull of the trigger shoots one bullet. These weapons are commonly used at shooting ranges and in hunting. Yet, they are often misrepresented as "machine guns" with heavy destructive force.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Drug cartels: Are assault weapons used by drug cartels?

[Add New]

Yes

[Add New]

No

  • A ban would create blackmarkets in arm trade. These blackmarkets could be directly linked with other illicit trading, such as narcotics, and could become a source of added revenue for organized crime and drug trafficking.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Hunting: Are assault weapons legitimate for hunting purposes?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Semi-automatic weapons do not serve a sporting purpose. Semi-automatic weapons original purpose are for shooting and killing humans, not game animals. In addition, is there any legitimate reason to want to involve assault weapons in the sport of hunting. First, the mass killing of game could be considered a violation of animal rights. At a minimum, this kind of activity does not seem to be much of a challenging sport. Rather, it would appear to make the maximization of the killing of game the primary objective, over the art of making a skillful kill.


[Add New]

No

  • Assault weapons are consistent with hunting for foot. The art or form of hunting was originated from obtaining a form of food, so it does not really matter how the kill takes place. Semi-automatic weapons makes it easier to operate a weapon so that you can kill game. The weapons, therefore, are a completely legitimate form of hunting.
  • Semi-automatic weapons has not decimated animal populations. People have been using semi-automatic weapons for years and have not caused not making a big dent i game account so we are just balancing the population with using these weapons.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con resources

[Add New]

Yes

[Add New]

No


See also

External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.