- 6,077
- USA
- swara96
Why don't we make this interesting. The national Public Forum (PF) debate topic for this month is what's written on the title. Each side can choose a Con/Pro side, and debate each other!
If not, then state what your thoughts are on the topic! I'm 2nd speaker, so pretty much all I do is write rebuttals to the opposing side. I will start.
Opponent claims: Crime was worse when the ban was in effect
My rebuttal: There is no concrete evidence to suggest and/or state that the crime rate was actually worse when the ban act was in effect. As a matter of fact, according to Time Magazine, “[Holmes’] weapon of choice was prohibited during the 10-year life of the 1994 federal assault-weapons ban.” Had the ban been in effect at the time of the shooting, 12 lives would have been saved, and it would have prevented 58 others from injury. Also, according to the New York Times, the guns that were used in the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting would have been banned if the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Act, saving 33 lives, and preventing and additional 23 from injury. Also, the Remington Model 870 shotgun used in the 2005 Red Lake Senior High shooting is also prohibited in the Ban act. These incidents, with numerous others, would have been prevented had the Federal Assault Weapons Ban been in effect at the time. So, it is flagrant that the crime rate was in fact worse when the ban was NOT in effect.
EDIT- maybe this thread can be moved to the Opinions/Current Events sub-forum.
If not, then state what your thoughts are on the topic! I'm 2nd speaker, so pretty much all I do is write rebuttals to the opposing side. I will start.
Opponent claims: Crime was worse when the ban was in effect
My rebuttal: There is no concrete evidence to suggest and/or state that the crime rate was actually worse when the ban act was in effect. As a matter of fact, according to Time Magazine, “[Holmes’] weapon of choice was prohibited during the 10-year life of the 1994 federal assault-weapons ban.” Had the ban been in effect at the time of the shooting, 12 lives would have been saved, and it would have prevented 58 others from injury. Also, according to the New York Times, the guns that were used in the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting would have been banned if the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Act, saving 33 lives, and preventing and additional 23 from injury. Also, the Remington Model 870 shotgun used in the 2005 Red Lake Senior High shooting is also prohibited in the Ban act. These incidents, with numerous others, would have been prevented had the Federal Assault Weapons Ban been in effect at the time. So, it is flagrant that the crime rate was in fact worse when the ban was NOT in effect.
EDIT- maybe this thread can be moved to the Opinions/Current Events sub-forum.