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

R1) Assault Weapons I concur with bluesteel that assault weapons are generally defined by how the law defines them. There is also a general consensus on what assault weapons are. Saying I am not allowed to contest what an assault weapon is , opens up a pattern of infinite regression. Meaning bluesteel could define an assault weapon as anything he wants, or in any way that he wants. Assault weapons - http://tinyurl.com... Under Australia's own policies handguns are classified under a different category than assault weapons - http://tinyurl.com... (See Above) By consensus I mean there are certain things that are generally considered to be assault weapons, and per the resolution we are debating assault weapons. Things such as barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, or an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip could be classified as an assault weapon. If he is referring to the latter, then I would concur that is an assault weapon, but that is not the pistol that is generally used in massed shootings. As I stated if he is allowed to dictate what an assault weapon is, that alters the definition and he could classify it as anything opening up an infinite regression. With that he could classify a single shot pistol as an assault weapon. Our conversation was originally that of assault rifles, until during a convo we had last night when I mentioned about pistols and mass shootings (I mentioned my last source). When I gave him the numbers he did hint that he *may* run that LCMS are assault weapons, and I said I would contest if he did. Hence here we are.R2) IneffectiveBluesteel argues our source does not prove that Western Europe has higher mass shooting rates. However, it argues that some of the worst multiple victim public shooting incidents occur in Western Europe. It also noted how most mass shootings occur where it is impossible to own a firearm. It also noted, “Multiple-victim public shootings in general appear to be at least as common in Western Europe as they are here” [1]. He also argues his system would reduce the amount of semi-automatic weapons. Guns have two effects on crime. They increase crime when in the hands of criminals, and decrease crime when in the hands of law-abiding citizens through defensive use and deterrence. His whole argument relies on the idea that the negative effects outweigh the positive effects. The best criminologist and their evidence suggests that the effects, for the most part, cancel each other out. In many cases, firearms seem to reduce crime rates [2]. Bluesteel notes how the targeted firearm death rate decreased. However, the overall death rate was unchanged. It does not matter if a targeted decrease occurs, if the overall rate remains the same, the law reaped no benefits.R3) Grandfathering / Compulsory Buyback He says grandfathering guns is not relevant but I entirely disagree. This assumes a few things, that people would in fact follow through with the buyback and or the buyback would be effective. America is entirely shrouded in gun culture. Issuing a mandatory buyback over here would be far different that issuing a mandatory one in other countries. You would literally get no effect, and people would feel as if you are taking away their freedom. You would not get the desired effect of the buyback. Basically you would be wasting money to issue a program that would not do what it’s intended to do. People would just keep their weapons, and then you would still have all the guns being grandfathered in. This is not even considering that America has nearly 310 million guns in private ownership [3]. Australia only has around 3 million in private ownership [4]. This is nearly 100 times the amount of guns, and the same is true with other countries. We have far too many guns, and we have to much of a gun culture to expect a compulsory buyback to work properly. R4) Rifles and HomicidesI’ll take it that he concedes the study from the FBI as accurate, other than disagreeing with it about not including mass shootings. I am not saying that is entirely accurate but let’s just crunch numbers for fun. Only 900 people have died from mass shootings in the past 7 years [5]. Now let’s get an average on this. If you take 900 and divide it by 7 years, you come up with nearly 128 deaths yearly from mass shootings. Add the 128 to 323 and you get 451. That is if mass shootings are not included at all. If you notate that bluesteel said “it only includes about half”, we can cut that number in half. Then it would be 323 + 64 which = 387. Then you would have to factor how many of the guns in the shootings that are not included in the FBI report are from assault weapons and which are not. If you follow the same percentage and ratio it would only be about 20 more rifle kills. Meaning instead of going from a 0.025 total homicide rate decrease, you would go to around a 0.032. Both of which are so small that it virtually will have no impact at all on homicides or crime. I am challenging his definition of pistols and LCMS being included in AW’s but even if we were to grant him his specific definition of pistol, even then it only goes up to around 0.051. Most are semi auto pistols and don’t fall under the criteria which he himself set (which I’m contesting)He then poses the question why not spend money to stop deaths? Because if you examine the buybacks, and compare it to the compulsory buyback and ban that he is proposing, it will never do what it’s suppose to do. I send you back to my round 1 studies where the buyback decreased gun rates for a year, which climbed right back up to the same amount before the buy back. In addition to that after the buyback crime rates increased when there were less guns, and decreased as more guns fluctuated back into private ownership. Meaning the proposed ban that he is modeling his plan off of supports that more guns decrease crime. R5) Pistols used more than assault weaponsI’m glad he brought up the aurora shooting. Because most of the kills from that shooting were actually from the pistol. If we review the shooting itself the shooters ar-15 (assault rifle) jammed and he was forced to switch between a glock and shotgun [6]. Even if I award him, which I will that a shotgun is an assault weapon most of the deaths came from the glock. Again if we are now classifying a glock as an assault weapon, to fit the needs of this debate we are playing into the infinite regress which I stated at the start of this debate. R6) Australia’s buybackHe argues that it is possible new gun owners merely bought lower capacity magazines and ‘less deadly’ weapons. This is merely conjecture. In the 4 years after ‘deadly’ weapons were supposedly removed from the hands of the people, there was a 19% increase in firearm related murders, 69% increase in home invasions, and 21% increase in home invasions. New Zealand, a country very similar to Australia, has much more lax gun control policies than her neighbor. New Zealand’s crime rate has remained similar to that of Australia’s over the past 25 years, suggesting that gun control is not a large factor in crime rates [7]. A study published in Contemporary Economic Policy concluded Australia's gun laws have not reduced the crime rate. The study notes, “there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides”[8].You get two conclusions from this data. Either buybacks do not decrease ‘deadly’ weapon ownership rates, or assault weapons have no effect on crime. Either way, those conclusions refute any argument that restrictions on high capacity weapons will reduce the overall crime rate. Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] Gary Kleck " Point Blank Guns and Violence In America" 1991[3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com...