Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Concession Conceding other weapons are more useful for defense does no give justification to ban something. A large knife is less effective then a machete in self-defense, but that does not mean we should ban large knives. And assault weapons are the most effective in many sports, so if effectiveness is a justification based on that it should not be banned. Effectiveness My opponent claims he has proven the ban has reduced gun deaths. Before refuting this lie made by gun control organizations, he has effectively conceded assault weapons ban increases crime. Why? As I have shown the ban is ineffective in reducing overall crime, and my opponents only rebuttal is he thinks assault weapons ban does not increase crime. He merely cites his opinion against statistics that have regressions to account for other variables. My opponent has claimed the assault weapons ban has “decreased” crime. Note again his sources only use statistics, which do not count for other factors. Merely citing a drop comes in the problem of endogenity where variables are omitted. Further, the data he cites is known as before and after averages, which is hugely faulty. These assertions don’t look into trends and omit many variables and cannot be considered a valid argument [1]. Further, lets assume my opponents data is good quality. Alright? Wait… that’s hard to do as Clinton researchers (that support the ban) have different conclusions to my opponent. They agree these decreases exist, but cannot “credit” the ban with any of the drop in gun violence when assault weapons where used [1]. As stated, my opponent’s argument ignores historical trends. In the decade previous to the assault weapons ban we saw decreases in assault weapons in crime anyway [2]. Due to the fact it was decreasing before to some unobserved reason, based on crime cycles it is logical to believe the ban had little effect on decreasing assault weapons usage. And if assault weapon regulation was effective, murder and robbery should decrease, as they are the most commonly used in these crimes. Basically my opponent’s arguments still rely heavily on my argument last round. If assault weapons bans actually lowered their usage, Lott noted that it would mean Robbery and murder would decrease. If they increase it shows the criminals are substituting methods, or that assault weapons crime increases. There is stronger evidence that these bans have increased crime amongst the areas in which assault weapons are most commonly used (murder and robbery) [3]. My opponent stated at the beginning of his argument, “The point was that less assault weapons were being used in such crimes.” Now, please tell me, even if it decreases assault weapons crime why should we support the law if it increases crime? That means it increases the amount of lives lost. So regardless of what your argument meant, my argument was never refuted and I extend the analysis. I have shown based on that it costs more lives then it saves. Saying other guns is worse is an ineffective argument? First the argument I will respond to first is the one that irritates me: that somehow I must prove we need to own a gun. This is false, as it fully shifts the burden of proof. “However, as we said about the Brady Campaign's comment concerning self-defense, the burden is not upon gun owners to demonstrate the degree to which a particular firearm is useful for any purpose. The burden is upon gun control supporters to show why banning a firearm or group of firearms would reduce crime and not infringe the constitutionally protected right of individuals to possess firearms.”[4] I needn’t prove you need an assault weapon. Pro is the one making a claim; therefore has the BOP to justify the claim. Therefore only I can ask why shouldn’t I own the gun, you cannot ask why. And either way, why not owns an assault weapon? With you having agreed burden of proof, you need to answer that question before I answer yours. And anyway, arguing other weapons are more effective is not a concession. It is pointless to ban assault weapons when other firearms are capable of more damage. Therefore it’s hypocritical to only ban assault weapons if your interested in its “dangerousness”. As John Lott notes, “Banning some semiautomatic guns when there exist other semiautomatic guns that fire the same bullets as the same rapidity and so the same damage cannot be expected to have much of an impact” [1]. As we can see it is indeed a relevant and logical argument which you have failed to refute. The bottom line: all guns are dangerous, assault weapons ban increase crime regardless of the weapon used and still, therefore, cost more lives then they take. (Like seriously, even if we assume they lower rifle crime they still raise crime and therefore take lives. Does it matter if they are done by other methods? And it is relevant that my thirty caliber rifle is more deadly then an assault rifle) Sports My opponent has claimed a too small portion of the population does it and, therefore, it is a poor argument. This is the most illogical thing you have said yet. First, other guns are not more effective then assault weapons in the sports assault weapons are made for. Second, only 10,000 out of seven billion people go the Olympics [5]. Does this mean the Olympics is not a real sporting event? The number of people in these competition is irrelevant to its sporting status, only its popularity. Whole sports rely on assault weapons. My opponent’s argument is very ignorant. Also as stated assault weapons are very common and usually preferred when small game hunting [6]. Defense It is indeed true assault weapons are used in police shootings. I will not deny this. But facts have shown banning assault weapons has little effect on their use on police [3]. And, as stated, the ban increases crime overall and costs lives. An argument my opponent has dropped last round proved getting rid of assault weapons ban has decreased crime. I have shown, therefore, the ban saves lives overall. And the number is not 10%, its 8%. And the data was not assault weapons, but calibers associated with them. And those calibers are common in other rifles, meaning the number is likely lower [7]. Conclusion: My opponent has fasly shifted the BOP that I need to prove we need assault weapons. Something being nessacary is irrelevant to somethings legality. A book is not nessacary for life, but we keep them legal. So this point is totally irrelevant. I have shown that assault weapons bans increase crime therefore causing more bloodshed then they are legal. My opponent merely counters assault weapon crime decreases. But if the outcome is the same, should it matter what is being used? All in all, the bans cost lives and my opponents rebuttal misses the point, and actually does not prove his point. Here is an analogy. A phone ban goes in place. Brain cancer falls, but it was proven it causes more cancer deaths overall. That means it does more damage then it helps. It is irrelevant on the type of cancer. Just as its irrelevant on the type of weapon. It still costs more lives then it saves and, therefore, is obviously in justification not to renew the policy. Here is a cool graph taken from the book: The zero is when the ban is passed. We increase in the murder rate galore. Therefore the AW ban kills more then it saves, and based on this CON already wins. Bottom line: It takes more lives away then it saves, and therefore is an bad public policy. This is the central issue which my opponent cannot and has not refuted. A CON vote is the only logical vote. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...