Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

As for the burden of proof, it only makes sense if PRO has it because he is PRO, is against the status quo, and is the instigator. I only need negate, however I will post a case. 1. Assault weapons bans have been ineffective in their goal Assault weapons ban are made to lower crime—specifically gun crime—and the question is why would we want to re-introduce something that has had no success? All current research has either found the assault weapons ban has had no effect on crime or has had an opposite effect (crime rises). First lets look at some facts. First, most early research on the topic (even when Clinton era researchers concede it has been ineffective) concludes the results are, at best, mixed. Christopher Koper, Daniel Woods, and Jeffrey Roth note: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nations recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on the indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the chare of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes in both [assault weapons] and [large capacity clips].”[1] In other words, after controlling for other variables, the assault weapons ban has been horribly ineffective. Two separate analyses have found the assault weapons ban has increased crime. The first on in 2003 gave shocking analysis on the issue. It was found these bans decrease gun shows and, in the long run, lower gun ownership leading to an increase in crime. The analysis acknowledged the nations decrease in crime in the 90s, however proved the assault weapons ban had no effect on the decrease. It then found assault weapons ban increase violent crime 1.5%, and increase murder 11.9%. In other words, the reasons crime dropped where larger then the Assault weapon ban effect. He argued the massive crime decreases would have been larger if the Assault Weapons ban was never put into place. The average increase was slightly different amongst states, For example. Hawaii had a murder increase of 45%! There is no evidence these bans lower crime, and as the analysis argues there is some evidence it might increase crime [2]. A second analysis was done in 2010. In crimes assault weapons would be used in, murder and robbery, we see an increase in this category. This further argues the assault weapons cannot logically have had an effect and increases crime. The initial first year effect is a .4% increase in murder, and 3% increase in robbery. A -3% in rape. However, each year the law is in effect we can gauge its effect (in other words, every year the law makes X happen). Each year, an Assault weapons ban would increase crime 3.2% each year, rape increases 1% every year, robbery increases 2.7% increases, and assault increases .1% every year [3]. In other words, the increase of an assault weapons ban increases crime and after one year the initial rape decline is offset by the yearly 3.2% increase in rape. 2. Assault weapons ban are unconstitutional “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In the time of the framers, an equivalent assault weapon would be a pistol, and the founding fathers supported citizen’s rights to own these weapons. Many argue they never existed, however, and therefore no right exists. This argument is flawed as new technology is usually protected under the constitution. “Judges that must interpret the second amendment, like those that must interpret the first and fourth amendments, must consider the implications of new technology. The framers of the Constitution could not foresee surface-to-air missiles, just as they may not have foreseen television, radio, or wiretapping. Courts have reassessed rights under the first and fourth amendments in light of the new technology, and found that new technology has not eliminated the rights protected by those amendments.”[4] In other words, new technology is not refuting the contention. Many court cases made a test to determine which guns are protected under the second amendment. Assault weapons pass these tests. The test argued weapons used purely for military purposes are not protected. However, assault weapons are used in small game hunting, and many people use them for self-defense and they are not purely military. Further, many federal courts have struck down state assault weapons ban on constitutional grounds. In 1998, the court did this: “The Third District Court of Appeals ruled a major portion of California's 'Assault Weapons' Ban is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine and the due process of law. The three-person panel also directed a lower court to review the possibility of throwing out the entire act.”[5] Further, assault weapons ban effect many other guns that are not really “assault weapons”. Assault weapons are just like any other semi-automatic and, therefore, banning them is unconstitutional [6]. Conclusion: Assault weapons ban have either had no effect or have increased crime. And, either way, they are unconstitutional. I urge a con vote. [1] Christopher Koper, Daniel Woods, And Jeffery Roth. “An updated Assessment of the Federal Assault weapons ban: Impacts on Gun markets and Gun violence, 1994-2003,” United States Department of Justice, (June 2004). [2] John R. Lott. “The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong.” Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003. [3] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. [4] http://www.saf.org... [5] http://www.saf.org... [6] http://www.davekopel.com...