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

I accept the terms except classifying handguns as an AW. Almost no bans have ever outlined handguns as AW's and the ones that did, overturned the ban later to allow handguns (even one with LCMS) to be used given the proper paperwork. Since the resolution defines this debate as adopting a policy similar to Australia, we can clearly see that handguns are not banned in Australia and are allowed (even ones with LCMS) given the proper paperwork and checks. http://www.ssaa.org.au...C1) IneffectiveBanning assault rifles will have little to no effect. The only argument that can be made for pro is mitigation of mass shootings. This is a weak argument, as countries with strict gun laws in Western Europe have higher rates of multiple victim shootings when compared to the US [1]. Pro may argue AW’s are semi-automatic, which have a higher rate of fire then, say a hunting rifle. Therefore, AW’s kill people more efficiently. This argument is ignorant as to how firearms actually operate. Many weapons not considered ‘assault weapons’ are semi-automatic, and are often used in sports like hunting[2]. If anything, AW’s are less deadly than many hunting rifles.That however will not stop criminals from getting guns. This law generally applies to anything with a ban, but it opens up the black market and underground traffic for the thing that is banned. Take prostitution and drugs for example. These activities will still occur regardless of whether a ban is in place or not. The benefit of having both of these legal is that with proper regulation, you can control it better. When something is banned the demand is still there, but the supply is now limited. This in turns opens up a black market to get access for the demand in question [3]. The same line of logic applies with assault rifles. If there is a ban criminals will still be able to obtain them easily. It may reduce and limit their chances of getting them by a miniscule amount, but they still will be able to obtain them.I refer you back to the 1994 assault rifle ban which ended in 2004. Studies have been released regarding the effectiveness of the ban, and nearly all of them found the ban did nothing to reduce crime [4]. As you would expect banning AW’s reduced weapon crimes in the specific targeted area. Meaning the gun types that were banned saw around a 17 percent decrease in crime but only with that type of gun (AWS). This is a minimal achievement at best, but the amount it was reduced by was offset midway and toward the end of the ban by the use of other guns with large capacity magazines [4]. The normative 17 percent decrease, was offset by nearly a 40 percent increase of other types of guns with LCMS.The study goes on to say this“The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. “[4]An earlier version of the study concluded the same way, noting “the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban… The ban’s impact on lethal gun violence is unclear. The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims” [5].Indeed, not one peer-reviewed study supports the notion that AW bans reduce crime. In fact, there is evidence that the AW ban may have increased crime. States that continued with their own assault weapons ban saw fewer decreases in crime when compared to states which abolished the ban. States with the ban saw an average 2.4% decrease in the murder rate, whereas states who had no ban (after 2004) saw murder rates fall by 4%. In fact, some of the few states that saw increases in crime were the states which had bans [6]I will even direct you to a study that gave a positive effect of the ban. As I stated earlier, the amount of murders and crime that occurred by AW’s were reduced. Most of the numbers fluctuate around 9 percent to 18 percent. This study cites that the assault rifle ban reduced gun homicides by around 6.7 percent [7]. The same study then goes on to note that the evidence is not strong enough to conclude any meaningful effect. It also states the reduction from the AW ban does not account for the increase in subsequent gun deaths from other types of gun with LCMS.A – GrandfatheringEven with all the information that I have already established, this is not even considering the fact that almost any ban would have to grandfather in the AW’s that are already in circulation. There are nearly 20-30 million guns in public circulation which are labeled as AW’s by a ban’s standards. Meaning even if a ban stopped new guns from being produced, there are still those near 30 million guns in private ownership already that will be grandfathered in. C2) Examining the Australian buy backSince the resolution is about whether or not the US should adopt a policy similar to Australia, I would like to review some of Australia’s policies, buybacks, and gun bans. The first thing I want to examine is their buy back and gun ban. Since a buy back is the only effective measure in countering the amount of Grandfathered guns, I would like to examine the Australian one along with their ban to see how effective it actually was. Australia’s buy back, in 1996-1997, reduced the firearms supply from 3.2 to 2.2 million guns. The buyback targeted long guns such as semi-auto rifles, shotguns, pump action shotguns, and a small portion of military grade rifles. Immediately after the buyback was finished, gun ownership levels began to increase, and the levels went back to what they were before the buyback. If the number of firearms are important in determining death rates, we should have seen a decrease in crime directly after the buyback, and an increase as the number of guns were building back up. However, there was an increase in crime directly after the buyback and a decrease in crime as the gun levels were building back up [8][9]. The Australian laws failed to reduce, in the long term, the amount of firearms in circulation. This indicates that there is no possible way that Australian laws could have affected crime rates. If anything, those statistics support the notion that firearms reduce crime, not increase it. C3) Guns do not increase crime ratesLet’s assume any buyback system was to remove all of the rifles in circulation. No rifles would be used in crime. In 2011, rifles were used in 323 homicides [10]. So, at maximum efficiency, there would be 323 fewer homicides per year. Rifles, however, constitute a tiny portion of homicides. In total, there would only be a 0.025% decrease in the total homicide rate assuming the buyback was 100% effective. C4) Mass ShootingsOne thing most people that are pro assault bans will try and point out, is that assault weapons cause more damage in mass shootings and are the primary cause of deaths in mass shootings. As I stated earlier that is only true with fully auto guns and not semis. Semis rely on how fast you can pull the trigger so a pistol can fire just as fast as an ar-15 in some cases. Not only that but pistols are used nearly 3x more in mass shootings than rifles. From 1984 to today 22 shotguns have been used, 29 rifles, 23 revolvers (pistols), and 77 semi automatic handguns. That means over the past 30 years handguns were used in 100 deaths in mass shootings, which is 3x the amount of rifles and shotguns, and even if you combined rifles and shotguns and consider them both assault weapons, it is still double the amount of deaths from pistols alone. [11]Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2]http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com......[4] http://tinyurl.com...;[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com......[8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com...