Bluesteel v. Mikal, Resolved: The US should adopt a ban on assault weapons similar to Australia's.

R1) Assault WeaponsI agreed that a lawmaker was allowed to define the term, nor did I contest it. I also stated that it had to be practical. He did mention he *may* run an argument around pistols, but I also mentioned I would contest it if he did. The reason I stated it was an infinite regress, is because if you change the definition to fit the purpose of this debate virtually anything can be classified as assault weapons. Even fists are considered deadly weapons under the law in some cases. The point I was making is that he is citing one proposal and ban, and saying that is just cause for him to argue it in his plan. It ignores the fact that a vast majority of bans do not encompass LCMS in them. So to that extent we are playing semantics and trying to alter the definition to fit our purpose, which results in an infinite regress. Just a notation though, if you view this source - http://tinyurl.com... and look at the deaths from pistols, almost all the pistols fall out of his own criteria even if he is awarded a ban on LCMS. I still think that is stretching the definition and I would urge everyone to consider the same, but be aware even if you award that to him most of the shootings are from 9ms , revolvers, and 9m glocks. This also is separate from the fact that he is pushing a ban on the magazine and not the gun. Guns are capable of holding 10 round magazines just as they are 30 round magazines, and a majority of the statistics still stand. Which is why the aurora shooter went in with 2 10 round glocks, which also falls out of his criteria. Either way all statistics point in favor of my side no matter what you decide to award him. It’s a question of how much you want to give him. This is true with mass shootings, and even the argument he posed with crime. The argument is invalid once you realize that most guns fall out of his own criteria, and if you award me for contesting his definition, that dramatically extends even further to the point his arguments have virtually no impact. R2) IneffectiveBluesteel claims in the UK anyone can get a firearm legally. This is untrue. The amount of legally owned firearms has been steadily decreasing across the century, and has shrank to extremely low levels after the 1997 gun control laws were enacted. Interestingly, crime has increased significantly after each gun control law was passed throughout the last 50 years [1]. Blue claims the cross-sectional evidence undercuts my case. This is untrue, as I have cited multiple studies which were funded by the Clinton Administration which did not use cross-sectional data, and concluded that bans have no effect on the crime rate. Regardless, data has been produced which controls for various societal factors and concludes that AW bans increase the crime rate [2]. Regardless, the argument that AW bans do not work stands. Bluesteel points to research claiming that concealed carry laws increase the crime rate. That research has been criticized on various grounds. First, at least 3 recent studies have found the opposite conclusion, meaning that result is in the minority. Second, the researchers finding an increase in crime use methods which they themselves, in the past, argued was flawed. Lastly, the results are biased towards the wanted result (more crime) and their data sets have multiple coding errors [3]. It does not matter if criminals substitute weapons with lower capacity magazines. The death rate has stayed the same, or increased. The overall effect is not significant. R3) Grandfather / BuybackBluesteel assumes the buyback would work the same way as it did In australia but fails to realize the negative impacts of the ban itself. People think they have a constitutional right to guns, some would even call it infringing on property rights. Whether that is true or not, is not really the question. People will perceive it as a violation of rights, and that will lead to conflicts in and of itself. Take the bundy ranch incident for example which was hinged off of property right arguments [4]. This would escalate even more with a compulsory buy back, as it would have the same effect and on a larger scale. Saying the US can be compared to Australia is false. We have far to many guns, and far to many people that perceive it as their right to have them. There are guaranteed negative effects from the ban, and when you compare that to positive impacts that the ban *may* have, the negative will always outweigh the positive because it’s a certainty. Granted the positive impacts he is arguing, virtually have no ground because I have shown how studies support that a ban will have little to no effect on crime at all. He keeps saying grandfathering is negated because of the compulsory buy back, but that fails to address the inflammation that will occur if you try and take peoples guns away. The negative impacts of a compulsory buyback far outweigh any good that *may come*. Bluesteel cited the wrong source for the increase in homicide. My source 7 last round wasn’t by Lott. Blue forgets to present data on armed robbery, which shows a dramatic increase in crime when the buyback was instituted. Crime fell in 2001, before new laws were passed, and began to increase in 2002-2003, and then stabilize. This indicates increased robberies [5]. Australian homicides began decreasing closer to 2000, not 2002/3, indicating that neither the 1996 buyback nor the 2002/3 laws were responsible for the crime decrease. R4) Rifles and HomocideThe first thing I want to point out is that bluesteel commits an appeal to emotion in regards to the sandy hook shooting. It is an attempt to gain favor by appealing to emotion in order to garnish an effect. It is also a logical fallacy [6] Assault weapons are rarely ever used in crime. Most estimates range between 0-1%, even when including ‘pistols’ which can be considered AW’s. Criminals do not prefer AW’s, as they are larger than typical weapons, and criminals prefer concealable weapons. Criminologists note that there is “little reason to believe” that restrictions on assault weapons would reduce the number of gun crimes because most criminals prefer other weapons [7]. R5) Pistols vs Rifles Note that bluesteels own source said that he switched from a shotgun to a glock. That is what I wanted to highlight. That mass shootings encompass pistols, as well as shotguns and AWS. He is arguing about which gun caused the most damage, but acknowledging that a pistol did cause damage shows that shooters will default back to any weapon that is open to cause damage. It's a simple argument that is supported by my buy back studies. If you ban AWS, people will buy whatever guns are open. Most of these include 9ms, 9m glocks, revolvers, and lever-action/bolt action rifles. All of which have been used in mass shootings. A ban would virtually have no affect on the overall mass shooting count, and would be totally ineffective. Australia, for example, has had mass shootings (unlike Blue claims). One in 2002, and one in 2007--after these weapons were banned. Australia’s restrictive laws have not “translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths” [8]. The fact is, Blue’s proposal would not reduce death rates. Sources[1] Joyce Lee Malcolm. “Guns and Violence: The English Experience”, 2002, pp 166. [2] Lott. “The Bias Against Guns”, 2001, pp 211. [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] Kleck, “Point Blank”, 1991.[8] http://tinyurl.com...