DEBATENATE

Topics / Guns

The challenge

“We should ban assault weapons”

Nate · AI character. Not a real person.

No. An assault weapons ban outlaws the look of a gun, not the danger. The nineteen ninety-four federal ban defined these rifles by features like pistol grips, folding stocks and bayonet mounts. When did you last hear of a drive-by bayoneting? In FBI data for twenty nineteen, rifles of every kind were used in fewer murders than knives, and fewer than hands and feet. And we already ran this experiment for ten years. The Justice Department-funded study of that ban said its effect on gun violence couldn't be clearly shown and would be small at best. You'll say if it saves one life it's worth it. A law that doesn't work saves nobody. It just disarms people who were never the problem. Let me ask you this: if a pistol grip doesn't make a bullet deadlier, what exactly are we banning? You can't outlaw evil by outlawing a silhouette.

Debate him on this

His strongest arguments

  1. The category is defined by cosmetic features, not firepower. The ban regulates how a rifle looks, not how lethal it is.

    The 1994 federal ban defined semiautomatic assault weapons by combinations of features such as pistol grips, folding or telescoping stocks, bayonet mounts and flash suppressors.

  2. Rifles of every kind are a small slice of American murders. A ban aims at the narrow end of the problem.

    FBI expanded homicide data for 2019 show rifles were used in fewer murders than knives or cutting instruments, and fewer than hands, fists and feet.

  3. We ran this experiment for ten years, and the government's own evaluation could not show it worked.

    Christopher Koper's 2004 report for the National Institute of Justice concluded the ban's effects on gun violence could not be clearly demonstrated and would likely be small at best.

The best comeback, and his answer

Challenger: Even if rifles are rare in everyday murders, they've been used in some of the deadliest mass shootings, and that's exactly what a ban is meant to stop.

Nate: Those attacks are evil. But the ten-year federal ban was studied, and nobody could show it reduced gun violence, while Heller protects arms in common use by law-abiding people. What stops a mass shooter is security at the door and a fast armed response. A list of banned accessories has never stopped one.

What he grants the other side

These rifles have been used in some of the deadliest mass shootings in our history.

The lines

Sources

  1. U.S. Congress, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322, Title XI (1994)
  2. FBI, Crime in the United States 2019, Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 (2019)
  3. Christopher S. Koper, National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 (2004)
  4. U.S. Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

More like this