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

== Overview == Mikal has dropped my entire case throughout the debate . I'll show you why, as a debater, you can't do that and still win. Mass shootings. Mikal drops my statistic that 86% of mass shootings involved an assault rifle, assault-style shotgun, or a pistol with a high-capacity magazine. He also drops my argument that mass shooters are tackled when they have to reload and that if the playing field is equal (pistol vs. pistol), an armed citizen can stop the mass shooter. Based on the numbers Mikal used for mass shootings, my proposal could have stopped 774 mass shooting deaths over the last 7 years. Mikal also drops my argument that mass shootings are akin to domestic terrorism and have a horrible impact on the nation's psyche, so we should weigh these lives saved the same way we'd weigh preventing 774 deaths from terrorism. Homicides. Mikal drops my statistic that high-capacity magazines (mostly in pistols) are used in 26% of shooting crimes. Drive-by shootings and certain other crimes become much more difficult with low-capacity magazines. By preventing or mitigating one-fourth of all shooting crimes, my proposal could save 2,850 lives per year (based on the homicide rate). Mexican cartels. Mikal completely drops my argument that Mexican cartels would not be able to get 87% of their guns if those guns were not sold legally in the United States. Cartels have used American-made guns to kill approximately 17,000 people per year [120,000 over 7 years]. And assault rifles kill 238 people per year in border cities (on both sides of the border). Adding up the total lives my proposal could save = 110/year (mass shootings) + 2,850/year (homicides with high-capacity magazines) + 17,238/year (trafficking to Mexico) = 20,198 lives saved each year. As I said last round as a preview, this number is way bigger than what Mikal gives me credit for with his "rifles not used in homicides" argument. 20,198 lives saved per year is a *huge* impact. In contrast, Mikal has very little offense in this debate. Most of his arguments are merely defense, e. g. arguing that a buyback would not be 100% effective and that people would substitute to low-capacity pistols. But these are not reasons to vote Con; at most, they slightly mitigate the number of lives my proposal could save. [Remember, BOP is shared, so Mikal has to make out a case for why we should keep assault weapons, which he has failed to do. ] Mikal's only argument that could be construed as offense is that assault rifle ownership prevents crime (his source #2 from last round). However, first, Mikal never quantifies how much crime is prevented, so the 20,198 lives saved each year outweighs. Second, Mikal never explains using basic logic why assault rifles are so essential in preventing crime (despite me asking him to do so in Round 3). My proposal allows people to own handguns, which Mikal concedes are equally as good for defending the home from burglars, and Lott's own research shows that handguns are *more effective* at stopping crime outside the home because they can be concealed-carried, whereas assault rifles cannot. So the fact that my proposal still allows handgun ownership takes out all of Mikal's offense because handguns are just as good at preventing crime as assault rifles. Regardless of what you think about gun control in your personal life, I have clearly shown why I have won this debate due to Mikal dropping all of the offense I garnered from my case. You can't let Mikal go back and respond now because I have no chance to rebut what he says. You have to grant me the *full weight* of my impacts from Round 2 because they were completely dropped, so you have to grant me the full weight of 20,198 lives saved per year. == Rebuttal == (1) Definition of "assault weapons" The debate about definitions is over at the point where Mikal drops two key arguments: (1) there was a federal bill proposed in 2013 that defined "assault weapons" as any weapon that contained a high-capacity magazine (including pistols), so my definition is reasonable, and (2) every single state defines the term "assault weapon" differently, so it is up to the lawmaker (in this case me) to define the term. Mikal claims I could define a fist as an assault weapon, but (1) I couldn't run that because Australia hasn't banned them and I have to propose something "similar" to Australia's policy; (2) there has been no federal legislation in the U. S. to ban fists, so I wouldn't be able to cite past precedent for defining fists as an "assault weapon," and (3) if Mikal can't defeat a proposed ban on "fists," there's something wrong with his debate skills. My definition of "assault weapons" is reasonable, fair, and capable of being debated. (2) Bans are "ineffective" In the last round, Mikal drops his argument about mass shootings in Europe because he can't prove that every country in Europe bans guns. Mikal keeps talking about England, which according to his own source (#1, Round 2) has had only *one* mass shooting since implementing its gun ban. And that one mass shooting was due to a well-known hunting license loophole. Mikal also claims later in his round that Australia has had two mass shootings since enacting its ban. However, a "mass shooting" is defined as one that results in four or more deaths. Mikal's source says that in Australia, the 2002 attempted "mass shooting" killed two people and the 2007 attempted "mass shooting" killed one person. If anything, this *completely* proves my point. Without high-capacity magazines, the shooters were not able to kill more than 2 people before they were stopped. This is in sharp contrast to Sandy Hook, where Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle to mow down 26 people before he was stopped. So a ban similar to Australia's is effective at stopping or seriously mitigating mass shootings. Mikal's source #2 was answered in the overview: handguns are just as effective a deterrent as assault rifles. Mikal also provided me his source #2 (via PM), and the study did not control for socioeconomic factors, which renders its results meaningless [it only controlled for population size and drug use]. Mikal also claims England has seen an overall crime increase (in all crimes) in the 50 years since banning guns, but if you compare the UK crime rate to the U. S. one, the trend is almost exactly the same (a steady increase until the early 1990's and then a decline). UK [Note: England banned handguns in 1997 and clearly saw no increase in crime afterwards] U. S. General crime trends are clearly caused by factors other than gun ownership. There has thus been no solid evidence provided in today's debate that gun bans increase crime. Mikal keeps citing the study from the Clinton Administration that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not reduce crime rates. However, the study specifically said people substituted for other legal high-capacity weapons. Mikal has never answered the fact that low-capacity weapons are not as useful for committing various homicides, and I never claimed my proposal would reduce other types of crime besides homicide. Also, extend Mikal's own study proving a 17% reduction in the use of the banned guns in crime. Bans do reduce crimes using the *targeted* guns. (3) The buyback Mikal claims some people will keep their guns and even threaten to shoot anyone who tries to take them. While a few anti-government nutjobs like at the Bundy Ranch might do this, Australia also had a very hardcore gun lobby, but *most* people ended up surrendering their guns. Even if some Americans refused, a buyback (plus criminalizing selling the guns) would make assault weapons very difficult to obtain in future, which is sufficient to save lives. Mikal claims Australia's buyback of rifles in 1996 increased robberies, but this is illogical. Assault rifles aren't carried with you outside the home, so how can they deter robberies? [note: if a robbery occurs inside the home, it's classified as a "burglary"] Mikal's graph only proves that crime rates are affected by things other than gun ownership rates. Extend that the homicide rate in Australia has declined every year since they banned high-capacity magazines in 2002. Mikal claims the decline started in 2000 or 2001, but because homicide rates also fluctuate up and down naturally, you can't use this to conclude that the high-capacity magazine ban did not cause the long-term decline. (4) Rifles and homicide Answered by my overview. My case does not depend on rifles being used in normal homicides. (5) Pistols vs. rifles My source said that most of the victims at Aurora were shot with shotgun pellets from an assault shotgun. Regardless, the two incidents in Australia prove that low-capacity pistols cannot inflict the same carnage as assault rifles/shotguns and high-capacity magazines.