Restricting the type of firearms available to civilians will reduce gun death

Before I start, I would like to fervently thank Juris_Naturalis for giving me one of the best debates I've had on any form of gun control. He's had a highly reasoned argument, one that I greatly respect, as I also respect him. It was a privilege to debate this topic with you, and I hope anyone who reads this debate grows to appreciate it as much as I have. Now, before I launch into concluding remarks, a word about the definition. I think it was generally assumed throughout the debate that this was the definition of semi-automatic. What I've spent my time explaining is how, specifically, a semi-automatic rifle can be altered to make them more dangerous in ways other weapons currently available to the public at large are not. Whatever that definition may be, the reality is that none of the modifications I've discussed change how these weapons are regarded under the law. They're still "semi-automatic," despite changes to the number of bullets fired per trigger pull. Crystallization and Conclusions Overview What's going on in this debate? To understand that, I think we have to look back at the topic (presented in full in R2): "Restricting semi-automatic rifles and their standard capacity magazines will reduce gun death." Voters should evaluate the debate based on who provided the most net beneficial arguments based on this topic. As such, which questions should voters be asking? 1. How would restrictions on semi-automatic rifles affect the country? 2. How would restrictions on the capacity of magazines affect it? So let's see how well I can encapsulate the answers. "How would restrictions on semi-automatic rifles affect the country?" The most important thing to remember here is that Con has never argued that there is a harm to restricting semi-automatic rifles in this country. Not once. As such, he has no offense on this point, and as I said in the last round, that means any point I am winning makes this point overall net beneficial. How should we evaluate those theoretical benefits? We have to determine whether the loss of life caused by those rifles is, to any extent, higher than it would be in their absence. And this is where Con's analysis truly fails to get traction. Barrel shrouds and flash suppressors substantially increase the threats engendered by these weapons - Con fails to fully address these. Slide fire stocks are even more dramatic, and all of Con's responses here simply miss the point. These are semi-automatic rifles firing faster than any other weapon easily available, and by Con's own argument about the number of misses involved, this is a demonstrable harm. Whether Con believes it's automatic or not doesn't change the fact that the danger is increased, and the reality that other methods exist to make this possible only increases the harms of semi-automatic firearms being widely available. In effect, I've proven that there are significant benefits presented to mass shooters who decide to use these weapons, as they result in a higher capacity to inflict mass deaths than any other weapon. Whether mass shooters continue to acquire and use other weapons only mitigates this point. The number of deaths will be reduced, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it's 5, 20, or 300 deaths that are prevented - each and every one is a benefit to my case. Now, onto the second question. "How would restrictions on the capacity of magazines affect it?" All of Con's offense is located here. This is the only place where Con argues that a restriction would inflict undue harm. And he's simply not winning these points, nor is he outweighing my offense on this point. Con's main point here is that a higher capacity magazine is necessary for home defense. The fact is that Con hasn't substantiated this argument enough to win it. The fact that people miss more often than they hit when they shoot is not sufficient, especially when the very methods that Con states circumvent these problems remain legal. He hasn't been responsive to my points regarding other factors that subsume his own. His other offensive point here is criminal acquisition. I've shown that criminals are not at all likely to acquire high capacity magazines through a black market, many of these arguments going unaddressed. I've shown how it is a negative sum game for criminals to steal these weapons, making this a similarly unlikely outcome. Both a black market and increased theft are simply unlikely outcomes, and both still preferable to the ease of access seen in status quo that ensures that ALL criminals have high capacity magazines. And what are these up against? I haven't left this portion of the debate solely to mitigation. I've provided extensive argumentation about how the availability of these magazines, and of semi-automatic rifles, go down when they're illegal, reducing the threat to law-abiding citizens. I've shown that accidental shootings are a bigger problem than home defense is a solutions, as my R2 post's [3] and [5] confirm. I've provided a logical basis for why this is true, explaining how high capacity magazines lead to an increase missed shots and more shots fired out of nervousness, which directly lead to an increased probability of innocent bystanders being harmed. These outcomes are not only far more likely, but their impact is barely mitigated over the course of this debate, meaning that they have higher value. In conclusion, I've provided a well-warranted, highly logical, and evidenced argument in support of the resolution. My impacts are stronger and more likely. As such, I urge a vote in favor of Pro.