Resolved: Assault weapons should be banned for civilian ownership.

Good morning (or afternoon or night, depending on where you are) to all readers and to my opponent. I think you for your opening speech, and must admit I was quite taken aback by the skill shown and validity of the arguments presented against the resolution, and would like to congratulate you on a very worthy opening argument. I will now move on to my opening argument. Not only do I believe we should ban assault weapons, I believe that we need to define them more broadly. I propose we define "assault weapons" as any semi-automatic weapon capable of firing rounds size 9mm or higher, to include shotguns, with a magazine capacity higher than 10. I believe this because whether for hunting, home defense, or sport, civilians do not need more than 10 rounds to accomplish the mission. Regardless of this ban, we should require a minimum of background checks, mental health screening, and firearms safety and employment training (on a five-year recurring cycle). Now that I have asked for a refinement of the definition, I would like to rebut a few of my opponents points, before I move onto my constructive speech. Your first point is that semi automatic weapons is not rapid fire. I would first like to present this quote from http://www.gunsandcrime.org... about the fire rates of semi automatic rifles: A person can pull (and release) a trigger about three times per second. A rare person might be able to pull four times per second. I would consider 3-4 shots a second as rapid fire. Although I will not challenge the point of rapid fire, because that would be very trivial, but I would just like to outline the fire rates of assault rifles. I do agree with you that detachable magazines are the most dangerous part of an assault rifle, (although you could state that the bullet is the most dangerous part :P) and I would like to point out that not only do they allow for faster reload, they can contain more bullets than a normal magazine, allowing for faster and more prolonged firing. I do agree that people do need firearms, for recreational purposes and to be kept in the home for defense, and I would congratulate you on cutting off my opening argument, which is why it took longer than normal for me to write and release my opening argument. Now that I have completed my rebuttals of your opening points, I will move on to my constructive speech. Many people opposed to banning assault weapons will say that criminals don"t follow the law, which I agree is true. However, I would like to point out that most of the shootings we are seeing in the news are not being committed with firearms obtained illegally. These are weapons that are being purchased legally by the shooter or someone close to the shooter. Almost inevitably, we find that the shooter is suffering from some sort of mental illness and that there had been warning signs. Banning Assault Rifles would make some progress on the issue, without being overly restrictive or violating the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but gives the reason to maintain a well-regulated militia. It does not say that citizens should be able to keep and bear any and all type of arms. Further, the training and screening requirements would go very far to keep the militia well-regulated. Furthermore the massacres at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and the 142 school shootings since Sandy Hook, illustrate that military style assault rifles and easily concealed handguns equipped with large capacity ammunition magazines are now the weapons of choice for mass shooters. These semiautomatic weapons are far more powerful and lethal than standard issue law enforcement service weapons. If this does not convince you, contemplate the risk of terrorists purchasing military style assault weapons in the 33 states and at the thousands of gun shows that don"t require a criminal background check or even proof of ID. Some argue that because most people in this country killed with firearms are shot with handguns, a ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines would do little to reduce most gun violence. While there is truth in the raw numbers, that argument fails to capture the lethal capacity of military style assault weapons and the now daily mass shootings in America. As of early December, there had been more mass shootings of four or more people in the US than days in the year. The common denominator in almost every one is an assault rifle and high capacity ammunition magazine. The prevalence of mass shootings has people rightly wondering if they are safe sending their children to school or going to malls. An assault weapon ban would not end all gun violence in this country and it might not significantly reduce the average 90 Americans killed by guns each day. But it would help reduce the daily mass shootings. It might also help us begin living without the fear of being massacred in a public place. In conclusion, the banning of assault weapons and high capacity clips would do a lot to decrease gun violence in the United States. I do agree that some assault rifles should be allowed for civilian ownership but only for use for target shooting and/or hunting. But these would be pistols specifically made for target shooting, and hunting rifles. It is for the reasons that I have described above, and the reasons I will outline, that I as side pro believe that this resolution "BIRT assault rifles should be banned," must and will stand and I would firmly encourage a vote in support of the resolution. I look forward to hearing my opponent's response.