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

== What is my advocacy? == The resolution says I can propose an "assault weapons" ban similar to Australia's. "Similar" means "resembling without being identical." [1] "Assault weapon" is a term of art that is defined differently depending on the proposed legislation; "assault weapon" is not synonymous with "assault rifle," but rather includes "semiautomatic shotguns" and some "semiautomatic handguns."[2] The TEC-9 pistol is considered to be an "assault weapon." I propose a ban on all fully automatic guns, a ban on semi-automatic self-loading long guns (rifles and shotguns), and a ban on all high capacity magazines (that can hold over ten bullets), including those used in pistols. Using a high-capacity magazine converts a pistol into an assault weapon. [4] Australia's gun control policy went far beyond my proposal, although it did include a ban on "semi-automatic self-loading . . . longarms" and on pistols with "a magazine/shot capacity that exceeds 10 rounds." [3] As an aside, my definition of "assault weapon" is very different than the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" that occurred in the U.S. My definition is more consistent with the proposed 2013 Assault Weapons Ban, which would have banned all high capacity magazines, including those used in pistols. [4] The military and police would be exempted from this policy. == Buyback == The ban is easy to implement as far as new weapons: manufacturers are prohibited from making prohibited assault weapons in the U.S. and are prohibited from importing them into the U.S. However, for the guns that are already out there, the U.S. would need to implement a compulsory buyback program similar to Australia's. People who own prohibited guns are required to sell them back to the government for their full value. Australia bought back 650,000 semi-automatic long guns for $230 million. [5] In the U.S., there are 28 million semi-automatic rifles (and an unknown number of semi-automatic shotguns). [6] Extrapolating from Australia's experience, a buyback in the U.S. would cost about $10 billion. To put this in perspective, $10 billion is 0.15% of the total federal budget, and President Obama has deficit spent approximately $5 billion a day. [7] Ten billion dollars is only two days of deficit spending. The U.S. could deficit spend the buyback or just cut spending elsewhere. The U.S. could save $68 billion by eliminating pork barrel spending from the defense budget. [8] For example, the Senate recently approved the production of ships that the Navy said it didn't even want merely because the shipyards were in influential Senators districts. $10 billion is easy to fund, even though it sounds like a lot of money. == Criminal punishment == In Australia, illegally trafficking in banned guns can be punished by life imprisonment. [3] Mere possession is punished more like a misdemeanor, which might include only a fine. However, in the U.S., we have civil forfeiture laws, so if someone was caught with illegal guns at any time (even if they were pulled over for speeding), the government could seize the guns without compensation. == Net Benefits to My Proposal == (1) Fewer mass shootings After a mass shooting occurred in Australia in 1996, killing 35 people, the country enacted its current gun ban. Prior to this legislation, Australia had 13 mass shootings, almost one per year. [9] In the decade since the ban, Australia has not had a single mass shooting. [9] Why are assault weapons (with high capacity magazines) so necessary for mass shootings? Philip Cook, a professor at Duke, explains, "A high-capacity magazine in effect turns a semiautomatic firearm into a weapon of mass destruction." [10] The Aurora shooter, for example, used a 100-round magazine. More bullets means you can kill more people. In general, mass shooters miss three out of four shots. [10] A gun with a mag-size of 10 will kill 2-3 people, whereas a gun with a mag-size of 100 will kill 25 people before the shooter has to reload. Reloading is a serious problem for mass shooters. In the Tucson mass shooting, Jared Loughner was tackled as soon as he attempted to reload his 33-round magazine. One study analyzed 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years. However, for 26 of those shootings, the type of gun or magazine used was unknown. Of the remaining 36 mass shootings for which there was data, 31 involved guns or magazines that would be banned under my proposal. [4] So approximately 86% of past mass shootings would not have been possible under my proposal. In addition, in incidents where assault weapons or high capacity magazines were used, 151% more bullets were fired and 63% more people were killed. [11] Leveling the playing field. Gun advocates often talk about how concealed carry of handguns can save lives. However, when mass shooters have assault rifles, the playing field is not even. Assault rifles generally have 4 times the bullet velocity of handguns and have larger capacity magazines, so in a firefight, an assault rifle is far superior to a handgun. [11] The Army uses M16 Rifles instead of pistols because they are a superior weapon. In a mass shooting, if there *is* an armed civilian, that person has a better chance of stopping the shooter if the shooter is only armed with a pistol. For example, in 1998, Andrew Wurst attempted to shoot up a middle school dance using a pistol, but was stopped when the owner of the banquet hall pulled a gun on him. The outcome may have been different if Wurst had a more high-powered gun than the banquet hall owner did. (2) Crime High-capacity magazines were used in 26% of all shooting crimes. [12] Drive-by shootings and similar crimes become much more difficult with smaller magazine sizes. My proposal could decrease the homicide rate by as much as 26% by making certain types of shooting crimes much more difficult. (3) Mexican cartels Over the past few years, between 70 and 87 percent of the guns being trafficked to Mexico originated in the United States. [13] Most of these weapons were from "straw man" purchases, meaning that they were purchased legally in the United States by someone who intended to traffic them. [14] The cartels in Mexico have used American-made guns to kill 120,000 people since 2006. [14] The President of Mexico has pleaded with us to implement more stringent gun control laws in order to stem the flow of guns into Mexico. In addition, Professor Dube of Amherst did a study that concluded that the expiration of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (in 2004) resulted in an additional 238 deaths per year along the Mexican border. [15] As I stated above, the 1994 Ban covered far fewer weapons than my proposal, yet it still had a significant impact on gun deaths in border towns. Since the cartels prefer high-powered/high-capacity weapons, my proposal would significantly ameliorate the violence in Mexico because it would eliminate an easy source for such guns just a few miles north of the Mexican border. If the sale of "assault weapons" (as I define that term) were illegal (and punishable by up to life in prison), it would be much more difficult and much stupider to traffic guns to Mexico. Because my proposed assault weapons ban would save lives, you should vote Pro in today's debate. == Sources == [1] Google ("define similar") [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] See Daily Show clip, starting at 2:58 http://www.youtube.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com... [15] http://tinyurl.com...