Res: The United States should institute a ban on automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

I thank Side Con for his preceding speech, and now proceed to rebut the points made in his speech and rebuild upon my own. Looking at Side Con"s speech, we can distill his case down to three main contentions and a counter-plan, which we will then look at one by one. 1C: The plan proposed by Side Pro is not practical/effective. 2C: The plan proposed by Side Pro is unconstitutional. 3C: Guns don"t kill people; people kill people. Counter-proposal: Limit magazine sizes. STARTING with 1C, we must first notice this point comes into direct clash with Pro"s third contention. Thus, by refuting this argument, we reassert and build upon the points brought up in Side Pro"s third contention. Keeping this in mind, my opponent asserts Pro"s plan will not work on the grounds that the buy-back program Pro put forth will not eliminate enough guns in private hands. While Pro put forth a reasonable precedent for such a policy, Con took serious issue, namely, "When we look at how it affected Australia while it is arguable that it decreased the homicide rate, the one thing that is for sure is that it only decreased the guns in private ownership minimally." Con then did some calculations, but many of his figures proved quite confusing. Apparently, the Australian buy-back program decreased "this number" from 3.8 to 3.5. What is this number? What do the 3.8 to 3.5 refer to? Millions of guns? Numbers of households owning guns? Gun homicides per 100,000 citizens? Due to the ambiguity in Con"s argument, we do not know what he is referring to. Thus, his calculation of the reduction of guns in the United States does not have any content validity, as we do not know what content is being evaluated. The number has no meaning since we do not know what he is measuring. Conversely, if we look at some other sources, we find a far greater impact of the Australian buy-back program. A Harvard University study found the buy-back to have reduced gun owning citizens by 20%, almost halving the total number of gun-owning households (1). In the US, this would eliminate nearly 60,000,000 guns. But my opponent has two other key points under this contention. First, a mandatory buy-back program along the lines of Australia would cause "a rebellion like we have never seen." Even if this reduction ad absurdum was true, voluntary systems already in place in the US have done wonders for reducing the number of guns. Two counties in New Jersey, with voluntary buy-back programs, have already netted 14,000 weapons since December 2012 (2). These programs have worked, as seen in both Britain and Australia, and the New Jersey model demonstrates the US can support similar programs effectively. My opponent"s other argument along this line: eliminating assault rifles will not do enough. I agree. But as the resolution states, Side Pro is against semi-automatic weapons as well. In this case, that is any gun where you can fire a bullet without having to cock back a hammer or other such mechanism with each shot. Therefore, the vast majority of modern handguns (Glock, SIG Sauer, etc.) would be banned under Pro"s plan. 2C: The plan proposed by Pro is unconstitutional. My opponent believes Side Pro"s plan is "stepping on the Constitution." This, however, denotes a lack of understanding of how the Constitution works. ANY Constitutional right can be limited. After all, hate speech is illegal, but one has the 1st Amendment. "Stop and Frisk" exists, but so does the 4th Amendment. A weapons ban can co-exist with the 2nd Amendment; it just cannot infringe upon the amendment to a degree deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. So, in evaluating whether or not a policy is constitutional, we ought to use SCOTUS precedent to determine the answer. I produce two cases to support why Pro"s plan is constitutional. First is Palko v. Connecticut (3), establishing what makes a right fundamental or not. If a right is "essential to a fundamental scheme of ordered liberty," it is fundamental. Sadly for the 2nd Amendment, the SCOTUS generally considers it not essential to this scheme. Thus, the SCOTUS treats it with what is known as "rational basis" review, established by a second case, McCulloch v. Maryland. In rational basis review, if Congress as a "legitimate state interest" in enacting a policy, it is deemed constitutional. In this case, there is a clear legitimate state interest. Thus, the SCOTUS would deem such a policy constitutional. My opponent"s 2C does not stand on actual court merit. 3C: Guns don"t kill people; people kill people. I will keep this brief. As my opponent correctly notes, guns actually do kill people, through giving criminals a sense of power. With a knife or a club, a lot can go wrong. You can be disarmed. You could accidentally hurt yourself. Your victim might actually hurt you more than you hurt him. With a gun, you can keep a safe distance away yet still kill someone. Criminals feel in control. Yet limiting the magazine size still allows for this control; the criminal still has the distance, firepower, and repeating capabilities. All too much can still go wrong, and will go wrong in the world proposed by Side Con. So long as semi-automatic handguns are still floating about the streets, there is a severe threat to national safety. With that, let"s look at Side Con"s counter-plan in greater detail. CP: Limit magazine sizes. First off, I am not saying Con"s plan is bad, per se; it just isn"t the most effective way to regulate firearms. While Con has noble intentions, his plan only serves to prolong gun homicides in this country, increasing the possibility for gun massacres through keeping semi-automatic and automatic weapons in the hands of the public. These guns still have repeating capabilities and enough distance to keep victims far enough away. The gradual process Con endorses will undoubtedly take longer to pass than the plan proposed by Side Pro, even assuming Fiat power. Thus, while Con"s plan does work towards more effective gun control, his plan will cost our nation more lives than Side Pro"s plan. Now let"s rebuild upon the points brought up by Side Pro. Pro"s Plan Side Con only rebutted one plank of Pro"s plan, the second. Yet, as I elaborated upon in rebutting his first contention, a gun buy-back program can and will work. The funding sources I have used are solvent, with enough money to fund the guns the nation can buy-back. And, as New Jersey has shown us, US citizens are willing to sell their guns. Looking at my contentions now, 1C: Significantly decreasing the number of automatic and semi-automatic firearms in the USA is critical for national security. My opponent never refuted this point. It appears he agrees how necessary some form of gun control is. Nonetheless, he did drop this argument. 2C: A ban on automatic and semiautomatic firearms is morally correct. My opponent never addressed this argument as well. Yet, looking at our plans, one side definitively limits the fecundity, certainty, propinquity, intensity, duration, and purity of pain in our world. That is Side Pro. 3C: Assault weapons bans have proven feasible and effective. I addressed this contention in refuting my opponent's first contention. With all this in mind, let us review why Side Pro is the better idea for our nation. Both sides agree something must be done to limit the number of gun deaths in this country. Yet only one has proposed a solvent plan dealing directly with the problem at hand: the number of semi-automatic and automatic firearms in the country. While Con does some work towards a safer nation, Pro takes a far greater step: one consistent with our national values, morality, history, and yes, our Constitution. There is thus no other option but Side Pro. Thank you. Sources: 1.http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... 2. http://www.miamiherald.com... 3. http://www.constitution.org...