We should prevent automatic weapons from legalizing.

"Pro argues that every idiot knows that fully automatic weapons are more dangerous than semi automatic weapons, and that any idiot knows this. I would contend that an argumentum ad populum, and furthermore one that appeals to idiots, and should therefore be disregarded. Pro then asserts that higher rate of fire means that there is a higher chance of being hit by a bullet. Again, this is a bare assertion, one that is not supported by evidence. Even if we are to grant pro that being able to shoot more quickly rather than more accurately somehow increases the inherent lethality of a firearm, there is still no evidence that a fully automatic rifle would be particularly useful for the typical criminal. Again, the overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with pistols and revolvers due to the ability to easily conceal such weapons. Even granting pro the very generous assumption that fully automatic weapons are more lethal, there is no reason to believe that criminals would sacrifice portability for an increase in "lethality". Assuming that Pro agrees that rifles are far more "lethal" than pistols, he would be hard pressed to explain away the fact that rifles are one of the least used types of firearms used in crime." I thought you already knew this, but i ask you now this. Why was fully automatic weapons made illegal in the first place? Of course the people knew that fully automatic weapons were more dangerous then semi automatic. You said i have no proof that the chance of being hit by fully automatic weapons is high, but look back at the Hollywood Shootout. 2 Armed robbers managed to injure 18 persons and it was done by fully automatic weapons. Also, i dont have to press away any fact. Sure fully automatic firearms arent used as much as small semi auto firearms, but that doesn't mean that the fully automatic weapons arent dangerous. The bullet size is big and the stopping power of automatic weapons like assault rifles are high, adding an automatic firing mode and you have a dangerous weapon, why do you think the army uses rifles and not pistols in firefight? "Pro argues that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. This is false. As far as I am aware, the only states specifically banning fully automatic weapons are Michigan, California,, New York and New Jersey. Most, if not all other states allow for the ownership of such weapons. Fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF before 1986 are perfectly legal throughout most of the United States, and require only a $200 tax stamp and the appropriate paperwork to transfer." Ok, i misread it, but not all states legalizes them though. My debate here is to debate about preventing them from legalizing, not trying to make it illegal again in states where its legal. Pro argues that fully automatic weapons are dangerous. I do not dispute this. However, he has not been able to present any evidence or any type of scale as to how one measures the "lethality" of a firearm. Is an underpowered fully automatic .22 more "lethal" than a .308 rifle? Pro asserts that if fully automatic weapons were legal, everyone would buy one and rob a bank. Again, he provides no evidence of this, and it is particularly suspect because fully automatic weapons are already legal. Furthermore, even if they were not legal, they are easily converted from semi automatic weapons with minimal technical skills. If there was a demand for fully automatic weapons in the bank robbing sector as pro asserts, pro has not yet provided a reason why the black market has not provided such goods like it does with illegal drugs. Clearly we are not engaged in a War on Fully Automatic Weapons, so any hobby machinist should be able to churn these weapons out for all those who wish to acquire them, legal or not. And yet the incidence of fully automatic weapons being used in crime effectively approaches zero, despite them being both legal and easily converted from existing weapons. First of all, why are u picking 2 different weapons to compare? For the lethality, u should be comparing the same weapons, but on different firing mode. Lets say a M4 is fired on full automatic mode and then on semi automatic. The power doesnt change as the bullets stays the same, but the rate of fire changes, making it more lethal as more bullets are send flying everywhere. Changing weapons to fully automatic isnt legal. Yes, i know that there are no high demands for it, but that doesnt mean that it isnt dangerous as i just said in previous round. Also, the bank robbing was just a example of things that could happen. The Hollywood shootout is another one of those examples where fully automatic weapons were used in crime. "Lastly, Pro argues that only a small percent of the population has access to fully automatic weapons. This is not the case. If you do not have a criminal record, you are generally permitted to own a fully automatic weapon if your state allows them." And here comes my same answer. It is if the state ALLOWS it, but i just said most of the requests are DENIED. I got all the prove in the world showing that fully automatic weapons are dangerous so they shouldn't remove the ban. Vote Pro la. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...