The United States Should Ban Assault Weapons

Introduction: I highly appreciate my opponent continuing to argue. First of all, it appears that my opponent never really meant a full out ban which, in my case, is really confusing and perhaps a little frustrating. However, I will argue, and refute my opponent's points, regardless of what him or I had in mind. When labeling “ban” its pretty safe to assume that my opponent is referring to a normal ban, such as taking away things or officially prohibiting items. My opponent never meant this “type of” ban, and he never addressed it. Furthermore, it was never even implied that he meant a 1994 ban, where only assault rifles were banned. However, regardless of this scenario, I will continue to argue. I will use the argument as a rebuttal to both of my opponent’s rounds. Rebuttals: The 1994 ban did not fulfill its purpose In order for my opponent to advocate that bans are effective, he brought up the 1994 ban on assault rifles and claims how it was effective. However, this neither refutes any of my statistics, nor provide a strong case for my opponent. To directly refute my opponent’s stance on how the 1994 ban was effective, I will bring up that, LaPierre said of the 1994 ban that, “independent studies, including one from the Clinton Justice Department, proved that ban had no impact on lowering crime.” The testimony LaPierre submitted to the committee cited the first of the three major studies on the ban — this one by Koper and Jeffrey A. Roth in 1997 — in a footnote to support that claim. (1) The 1997 study in regards to this ban, said its analysis, “failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds.” (1) While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here's the UPenn study again: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.” (2) My opponent has yet to bring any solid evidence that the 1994 ban was really effective, yet there are multiple viable sources clearly showing that the ban was not effective at all! My opponent claims that murder rates decreased after the ban, however he does not show, in any way, that the murder rates and the ban had any type of relation. Furthermore, my opponent did not refute any of my statistics.That being said, I extend my arguments in regards to how guns bans are counterproductive….I look forward to it in the comments, unless my opponent decides to drop my arguments. (Which is what it appears to be) “There is no reason to own weapons” is completely irrelevant This argument is completely irrelevant because people have their own subjective reasons to own a gun and there is no way to prove/disprove/justify/ their reasons to own one. I tried bringing up that many people personally own a gun because of hunting or protection, but in the end this does not affect-in anyway weather gun bans should be permitted or not. The real reason is whether it really does any benefit to society, which is what I have advocated and shown. Conclusion: In regards to my opponent declaring that there is not enough statistics to prove that a 1994 ban would collapse the gun industry, well I was writing my arguments under the assumption that it was not a ban like the 1994, and I still hold my stance of how a ban would hurt the economy. This also includes how morale people won’t get guns. Although, this is unfair to future potential gun owners. This is extremely unfair since my opponent never specified in his arguments of what ban we were referring to, therefore it appears that my opponent changed his definitions-This is because he never even mentioned it in the second round. Final remarks: Regardless of my opponent’s definitions, my opponent hardly had any rebuttals to any of my arguments of how gun bans are counterproductive-He did not even mention my statistics. Assuming that he dropped those arguments, he tries to rebut my other arguments by changing the definition of ban (which was never mentioned earlier) which is very unfair. I clearly showed how my opponents arguments on “death by guns” are too insignificant, and by using my opponent's logic the government ought to put a ban on everything else that poses *some* degree of miniscule threat. This of course, is ridiculous. Hope this goes for a fair vote, and good luck Pro Sources: 1.http://www.factcheck.org... 2.http://www.washingtonpost.com...