My son (a junior in High School) came home from school today and said he has a debate project. He was assigned the topic of "Ban on assault weapons" and his argument is to be against this position. In other words, he needs to provide facts and debate why a ban on assault weapons should not be allowed.

 

Since you guys are the experts, what points can he used to support his position?

 

I came up with 2:

 

1) Assault weapons or not, the second amendment states the rights to bear arms and shall not be infringed upon, therefore you should not have a ban on any type of weapon regardless.

 

2) Banning any weapon will not prevent criminals from still using them for an unlawful purpose, so banning assault weapons is useless and has no positive affect at all.

 

What other points can he make?

This should help a bit. If you download the pdf Gun Facts 5.1 it has alot of facts about guns and more importantly, it shows source material which your sun will undoubtedly need to provide.

 

The first 6 pages alone are on Assault Weapons

My son (a junior in High School) came home from school today and said he has a debate project. He was assigned the topic of "Ban on assault weapons" and his argument is to be against this position. In other words, he needs to provide facts and debate why a ban on assault weapons should not be allowed.

 

Since you guys are the experts, what points can he used to support his position?

 

I came up with 2:

 

1) Assault weapons or not, the second amendment states the rights to bear arms and shall not be infringed upon, therefore you should not have a ban on any type of weapon regardless.

 

2) Banning any weapon will not prevent criminals from still using them for an unlawful purpose, so banning assault weapons is useless and has no positive affect at all.

 

What other points can he make?

 

Define "assault weapon" with any definition that is not arbitrary. That is an argument against any ban, since it cannot be done.

Thanks, this is great info.

Assault is an act not a weapon

I've used the sources used in that site to write a few college papers.

In Nappen's book, It lists 100 reasons to own one. There are some good ideas

and assault rifle is a select fire (read: fully automatic/burst capable NFA) intermediate cartridge rifle, not this "2 or more evil feature blah blah blah" crap the state says.

How about the fact that very little crime is committed with them.

I remember researching this in college some time ago using the NJ state police's Uniform Crime Report and seeing how more people were beaten to death with hands, fists and feet than were killed with rifles of any kind.

WOW - I knew I would get great info from all of you. You guys just did all his research, now he just needs to put it all together.

 

Thanks!

The fun part of this project is going to be the debate. His opponent probably thinks its an easy win but he is in for a surprise.

That GunFacts.info site is a great resource. I'd love to hear how his debate goes...

How about the fact that very little crime is committed with them.

I remember researching this in college some time ago using the NJ state police's Uniform Crime Report and seeing how more people were beaten to death with hands, fists and feet than were killed with rifles of any kind.

This. At the time the NJ ban (1992) and the Federal ban (1994) were put into place, less than 2% of gun crimes were committed with "Assault Weapons" in fact they had to add in high-capacity handgun magazines into the mix to make it REMOTELY viable as an argument, which is why NJ's AWB doesnt mention TYPE of magazine, just that it cannot hold more than 15 rounds, be it a Handgun Mag or a Rifle Mag.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

If you are talking about a ban against assault weapons, I think that one of the most effective arguments is one of definition. What is an assault weapon? Consider something that Justice Potter Stewart once said about pornography and obscenity: "It's hard to define, but I know it when I see it." I think many people base their definitions on whether a rifle looks like it is a piece of military equipment. Things get murky when you are trying to define something that means different things to different people. To some people, any gun is an assault weapon because its purpose is to kill. To others, only weapons with select-fire capabilities are assault weapons.

 

So one argument you can make is that assault weapon bans are only "feel good" legislation since engineering will always find a way to work around a ban. Consider the Hammerhead rifle grip for "California" guns and you will see how silly this game of legislation and engineering can be. http://www.exilemachine.com/

 

Also consider NJ's ban. New Jersey bans bayonet lugs as one of the features of an assault rifle. I don't know how many bayonet attacks we had before we enacted this legislation, but the presence or absence of a bayonet lug does not change the ability of a rifle to shoot.

 

Also note that one of the best arguments you can make is the Supreme Court's recent McDonald V. Chicago ruling which allows people to own "weapons in common use." If 48 other states (other than NJ and California) allow assault weapons, then it is hard to argue that these weapons are not in "common use."

Anything can be considered an assault weapon if it is used to harm or kill another. A rock, hammer, broken bottle, automobile, etc. All of these have been used in crimes but were never banned.

If 48 other states (other than NJ and California) allow assault weapons, then it is hard to argue that these weapons are not in "common use."

 

 

Actually, Mass, Conn, NY, MD also have restictions, special permits or bans on AW.

Look at the specific features used by those ignorant of the weapons to define them.

 

One of the most ignorant positions on so called assault weapons is the pistol grip being designed to "spray fire from the hip" (idiots, I can't even type that without being repulsed by their stupidity). In fact a pistol grip is by its nature designed to be more ergonomically correct when firing aimed from the shoulder. It is actually much more awkward to fire a rifle with a pistol grip from the hip than a so called "traditional stock" rifle.

 

The argument that they are somehow more deadly is refuted by the fact that they were designed to fire intermediate rounds which are much more likely to wound than to kill as a wounded soldier is more of a burden on a mobile military force than a dead soldier.

 

The M16 specifically is designed to fire a .223 Remington round which in most states is illegal to use to hunt deer because the round is considered to have insufficient power to kill them. In fact the .223 is considered by most to be a varmint round suitable for killing prairie dogs.

 

The flash suppressor or so called flash hider is evil because they say it conceals the shooters location at night when in reality it does no such thing, it is intended to deflect the flash out of the shooters line of sight to prevent night blindness.

 

The bayonet lug, really, give me one instance of a drive-by bayoneting and I'll capitulate on that one...

 

The grenade launcher is even more ignorant as the grenades themselves are considered destructive devices under the 1934 NFA and are almost completely inaccessible to the civilian market.

 

As for adjustable/folding stocks while they make a weapon more concealable they do nothing to improve the performance of the weapon in any way other than to potentially make a weapon more ergonomically correct for various types of shooters...

 

According to United States v. Miller:

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

 

According to Miller, in order for a weapon to be protected by the Second Amendment it must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” which would seem to imply that it would have to be military in its essential nature. A so called “assault weapon” meets this criteria nicely without providing a fully automatic capability…

What do you expect? The morons who wrote these laws knew nothing about firearms. That's how we got the hollow point ammo law.

Update -

 

I know it's been a long time since I posted this question, but today he finally had his debate.

 

Basically, the kids argue their positions, then the class vote who they think won the debate, but unfortunately, the votes ends up being more of what they feel towards the issue rather than who actually won the debate itself.

 

My son lost by a score of 13 to 10, but I think if he didn't have the information you guys provided be would have lost 20 - 3. His techer said he did a great job providing the facts. Most of his classmates told him afterward that he really did a good job convincing them the importance of the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.

 

Thank you guys, all of the information used from this board really helped him with this debate. All of his research came strickly from this information yoou guys provided.