The US should adopt a ban on all semiautomatic firearms

(1) Buyback program Pro is accusing me of cherry-picking and is saying that a support for all guns isn’t relevant. The majority firearms are semi-automatic firearms, so when Pro says he is going to ban semi-automatic firearms, he is banning the vast majority of guns (Pro himself admits that in his 2nd rebuttal). The top selling firearms in America have all been semi-automatic weapons. If we get into semantics, the poll is asking about “all” firearms whereas Pro’s resolution only talks about semi-auto’s, but it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that most of those who oppose banning all guns would also be opposed to banning semi autos, since they are the most popular and the most commonly used firearms. Pro ironically cherry-picks another statistic to prove his point by saying 70% support stricter gun control, but gun control is an incredibly vague term. I for one support a universal background check which is essentially stricter gun control. That doesn’t suggest in the slightest that I support banning semi-autos. If anything, Pro’s source is far more irrelevant than mines. It’s hard to guess what each responder had in mind when they heard “stricter” gun control but its unlikely they were all thinking about a blanket ban on all semi-automatic firearms. The only ban that has been commonly talked about is the “Assault Weapon” ban, and that is mainly because many people believe they are weapons of war. However Assault Weapons do not count handguns, so this doesn’t prove anything. (2) Illegal GunsPro is only talking about guns that are currently being manufactured, his plan will stop those weapons from going into circulation, but he misses three key points. The number of firearms in the U. S is over 320 million. There are over 12 billion rounds of ammunition. Guns can be used for an infinite period if maintained. It is not necessary for criminals to keep buying guns. A ban will shut down the major gun manufacturers, but private gunsmiths and 3D printing technologies can still be used. Theoretically, the supply and demand that is being proposed would work, but given the sheer number of firearms, this will take a very long time. The buyback program in Australia took roughly 1 year to collect roughly 660,000 firearms [1]. If the U. S were to collect at this rate, it would take around 533 years for the U. S government to collect all firearms (The U. S has only existed as a country for 242 years). This is a ridiculous amount of time and not a realistic solution. This also assuming that all semi-auto firearm production is outlawed, but Pro completely concedes my point on private gunsmiths and 3D printing. (3) Defensive Gun UsePro is saying my statistic on SDGU is false because the “Gun Violence Archive” says there were only 2,047 defensive “reported” uses. This statistic only counts reported uses, but most of the time, the crime was thwarted without any shots being fired. There is no incentive for any gun owner to report this information to the police, so it’s obvious that this figure would be significantly lower. As a mentioned before, the number of actual SDGU cannot be accurately determined, only extrapolations can be used. Therefore, the statistics provided by the GVA is useless. I do not religiously worship Kleck’s study, but Pro offers very little reason to suggest that the methodology that he used is incorrect. While Kleck does admit 64% of his respondents reported the incident to the police, he also mentioned a caveat of his own, but Pro conveniently left that part out in his rebuttal [2]: “This figure should be interpreted with caution, since victims presumably want to present their use of guns as legitimate and a willingness to report the incident to the police would help support an impression of legitimacy. Rs who had in fact not reported the incident to the police might have wondered whether a "no" reply might not lead to discomforting follow-up questions like "why not? " (as indeed it does in the NCVS). Further, it is likely that some Rs reported these incidents but did not mention their use of a gun” In 2013, President Barrack Obama (D) gave funds to the CDC to study gun violence. The CDC is by no means a pro-gun organization, but even they acknowledged the statistics provided by Gary Kleck [3]. At this point, Pro has pretty much conceded my argument on SDGU, because he himself admits that there are atleast 67,000 SDGU a year. That number is greater than the amount of gun homicide and suicide put together which he says is roughly 33,000. (3) HomicidesPro is suggesting we only focus on firearm homicides rather than overall homicides, but if a criminal doesn’t have a gun, he will use another weapon such as a knife. Knife offenses in the U. K are far higher than they are in the U. S [4]. Even if we focus on gun homicides, we must keep in mind that Britain had far less gun’s in circulation, which is a major variable that should be considered. Bluntly put, the U. S cannot attempt to prohibit firearms they way they did in other countries, therefore comparing these trends from other countries is not advisible, and the Australian ambasaddor himself agrees. (4) Black Market I have addressed most of the points in R2 for the first paragraph, so I’ll focus on the 2nd . Prohibition is an important event to discuss not because of its health benefits, but it’s effect on crime and the black market. In Pro’s own source, it states that Prohibition increased crime [5], and that the relevant piece of information we need. There was no Al Capone before Prohibition, but after it was passed, it allowed him to create a large black market which established his crime network in America. Given the sheer demand of firearms, I see no reason why another figure like Al Capone wouldn’t rise. Prohibition creates a black market and past events suggest that it would also result in an uptick of crime, therefore it is undesirable to pursue that would ensure that this happens. (5) BurdenSince this is policy debate, my arguments have been structured according to Pro’s plan, which is to have a mandatory buyback program. I only need to show why this buyback program to ban all semi-automatic firearms is a net detriment. I stated that in my opening round, and Con had no objection to it. I agree that some of my arguments are defensive, but they work in conjunction to my other “offensive” arguments. So let’s quickly recap my arguments to show that I have met my burden: Lack of compliance for a buyback program: Overall Detriments: Waste of taxpayers money and time of federal officials who could be doing something more productive Likely loss of 4th amendment rights leading to increased chaos and disorder which naturally leads to violence. Removing Self-Defensive Gun Use: Overall Detriments: 55,000 to 4.7 million additional violent crimes that could occur Americans lose their constituional right to realistically defend themselves Creating an Illegal Gun Market: Overall Detriments: Criminals will have easier access to these weapons, while law-abidding citizens will not Potential for major criminals to rise and establish crime network, along with increased crime rates Economic Reprocussions: Overall Detriments: Rise in unemployment and decreased economic output Long term affects of poverty which increases crime ConclusionI believe that I have shown enough flaws in Pro's case that his gun ban policy would be a net deteriment. The main argument that Pro has made throughout this debate is that his plan will reduce firearm and suicide rates, but by simply referring to SDGU alone, more lives are saved using guns than they are used to commit homicide and suicide, and that allow should be enough for me to meet my burden. However, I also shown flaws that could arise from the creation of black markets, which would result in increased crime, and I have also showed that there are economic reprocussions that will occur.