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

Alright, thanks again to my opponent, and let's dive in. Semi-automatic rifles A. Again, I never stated that violent crime as a whole would decrease. That's not a part of my argument. So long as I can prove that semi-automatic rifles are significantly more deadly than other easily available options, those 325 people are still reduced. It can be argued just how many it would be reduced by, but any prevented deaths are significant. B. Alright. Glad to know knives are off the table. C. I did provide a link to support this link. I'll re-post it, because almost all of Con's arguments here are in direct contradiction to it.[1] I'm sure Con is more familiar with rifles sizes than I am, though at the very least, folding allows more ease of transport and more ease of concealment. However, I will contend on the other pieces. Here are some quotes from the article: "The AR-15, for example, has a pistol grip, which helps a shooter pull the trigger more quickly and to better control the recoil, allowing him to fire more rapidly with more accuracy. It also enables shooting from the hip and spraying fire from side to side " something that would be deadly when firing into a crowd but useless in a self-defense situation. When fired rapidly, a gun's barrel can quickly become too hot to handle. A barrel shroud, common on many of the models listed in the governor's bill, enables a shooter to hold the gun with a second hand without burning himself. A forward grip, which is somewhat less common, achieves the same purpose... A threaded barrel allows the easy attachment of a silencer or a flash suppressor. The latter prevents the shooter from being temporarily blinded by the muzzle flash, particularly in low-light conditions, enabling him to fire more quickly and accurately. It also helps conceal the position of the shooter, something that may well have been a factor in the D.C. snipers' ability to evade detection."[1] If Con would like to contend that these aren't true, he must provide evidence of his own to counter. As for why a mass shooter would be concerned about muzzle flash, again, look to the article. It gives an example of a mass shooting in Washington that occurred over the course of three weeks, killing innocent people in parking lots and gas stations.[1] That required stealth, and even if this type of mass shooting is rare, we should work to prevent it. I did, however, leave something out of my initial response, which is that concealment really isn't necessary for mass murder in the first place. In fact, few of the instances I cited actually include any attempt on the part of the perpetrator to hide the weapon. I don't doubt that there are some people who would rather conceal their weapons in order to reach a certain location, but for senseless violence that doesn't require a specific target, these kinds of weapons far outpace anything else easily available. D. A large part of Con's argument has been focused on showing that people aren't likely to use these weapons. As he has decided not to address any of these examples, he is conceding that many individuals do utilize these rifles. That is despite their size and any difficulties in concealment. I'm asserting, and warranting the assertion, that the reason they're still used is because of their destructive power. E. The link I posted showcases exactly how a semi-automatic AK-47 can be converted to an automatic firearm for just $299 using a slide fire stock. Con provides no evidence in support of his claim that this is not possible. The warrants he provides show that it's not fully automatic since it still requires a manual trigger pull, but that's more a point on semantics than anything to do with the debate. The point of adding Slide Fire is to enable "controlled rapid firing," allowing shooters to "shoot one round, 2 rounds...15 rounds or a full magazine" with a single trigger pull. That's the problem here. If competition guns can as well, then they should only be legal on the range. On magazines, my opponent wants to have it both ways. He's arguing that small magazines are a problem for those defending against an intruder, and that small magazines are not a problem for a criminal, who would have access to altered magazines. Either victims are in more danger due to reload times, or nothing changes. It can't be both. I would argue that both taping and coupling are both methods to get around the problem, and at the very least require the acquisition and knowledge of yet another resource just to get to where they are now legally. The presence of such alternative methods to accomplish the same goal mitigates my point, but not completely. Magazines A1. One of the most significant portions of Con's scenario is that the criminals involved acquired their weapons illegally. So a large part of his argument is stating that such criminals breaking the law is a major reason for the law's nonexistence. The capacity to defend oneself against these people is dependent on them first illegally acquiring the magazine. A2. No, it doesn't stop criminal traffickers. I support registration and universal background checks for that purpose, but since that's not part of this debate, I can't claim anything from them. What I can do is warrant arguments for why most criminals won't be able to exploit this black market enterprise. The fact that I cannot control for criminals like Al Capone, who have widespread contacts in the criminal world, extensive resources, credibility and are known for being a dangerous individuals to mess with means little. The vast majority of criminals do not have that, and those won't be able to acquire higher capacity magazines. They would sooner purchase the low hanging fruits than pursue these more dangerous and expensive routes. A3. Con effectively drops this point. His only response is to body armor (which is mitigation at best, since body armor is still capable of affording these individuals advanced protection at range). The remainder of my argument regarding the factors of surprise, time required to acquire a loaded gun, and training go completely untouched. He does address my [5], but only with mitigation. The fact that it doesn't address death specifically doesn't make it unimportant. Each instance could lead to death, but death is not required to make these statistics important. Injury could be sufficient as a significant harm. Resultant fear and insecurity is a significant problem as well. I never claimed that the graphs I was looking at had anything to do with death, just with gun violence. A4. Con mishandles this argument, and completely ignores the latter point and supporting link. A missed shot is going to end up in some place other than the intended target. It can go into a wall, a piece of furniture, through a window, or into an unintended target. The more missed shots that occur, the more likely that any single one of these will be hit. A higher capacity magazine is going to result in more missed shots faster than a lower capacity magazine. Hence, there's an increased chance of an accidental shooting occurring. But the lack of response to the latter half of my point is glaring. Again, I'll repeat the link.[3] A person who defends their home with a gun against an invader is in more danger than someone who doesn't, and I even provided a warrant and evidence for that argument. That means that a higher rate at which people attempt to defend themselves is a harm, not a benefit, overall. And, as my [5] stated, not only is there evidence that this high usage isn't accurate, but even if it's true, far more guns are stolen and used by criminals than are actually used in self-defense in a given year, so the harm remains higher. 1. http://articles.baltimoresun.com... 2. http://www.slidefire.com... 3. http://www.motherjones.com...