Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Framework AnalysisTo win the debate, pro must show that the U.S. would be in a state preferential to the current one if the Federal Assault Weapons Ban were to be renewed.As I have the burden of proof, it is not necessary for con to bring up any arguments or contentions of his own. Should con do this, he must either disprove every argument I bring up, or manage to outweigh my benefits with his own possible harms. If con fails to do this, then the initial statement is fulfilled, as it will be shown that there are no harms to renewing the ban, and at least one benefit. The Goals of the BanThe number one goal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was to reduce the amount of assault weapons used to commit crimes. As the guns banned by the act are not designed for civilian use and create far too much potential for violence, decreasing the amount of citizens with access to assault weapons was another goal.The goal was never to completely restrict criminals from having access to such weapons. One cannot justify negating the resolution because “criminals will still gain access to assault weapons illegally” unless they prove law abiding citizens also need access to assault weapons. Simply put, legalizing something because criminals will always do it is an ineffective argument. The U.S. government cannot justify allowing anyone to have access to these weapons. The main goal of affirming the resolution, then, is to reduce the amount of assault weapons in general without increasing the amount used by criminals. Assault Weapons vs. Other FirearmsAssault weapons in the hands of criminals pose a far greater risk than other firearms. Semi-automatic weapons are capable of firing far more rounds per minute, enabling criminals to kill more innocent civilians in the event of a massacre. ”The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms. Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that 3% of the gunfire incidents resulted in more than 10 shots fired, and those attacks produced almost 5% of the gunshot victims.” (http://www.sas.upenn.edu...) Even without an automatic weapon ban, citizens are rarely able to fight back against such criminals. Therefore, the government has a clear interest in reducing the amount of assault weapons available to potential criminals, while simultaneously allowing citizens to fight back in the case of an attack.Note that the benefit of a semi-automatic weapon is generally to be able to kill more people, not to be able to kill one person in a faster way. Thus, criminals inherently gain more an advantage by using these guns than law-abiding citizens. Assault Weapon Bans WorkFollowing the previous ban, the amount of assault weapons traced back to crime decreased by 66%. When including copycat weapons, this number stood at 45%. As of 2001, only 1.1% of weapons traced back to crime were found to be assault weapons named in the act. This is a sharp decline from 3.67%, the first year before the ban. (http://www.bradycenter.org...) Massachusetts currently has a permanent ban on assault weapons, signed into law by Mitt Romney. "In Massachusetts, firearms kill three out of 100,000 people each year, compared to national average of 10 out of 100,000." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) Criminalizing the ownership of assault weapons dries up the supply, decreasing the ability for most potential criminals to gain access to such weapons. Furthermore, it decreases the risk of a citizen committing an atrocity because they have an assault weapon. While the black market may always exist, the simply rules of supply and demand will cause prices to increase, deterring certain criminals from buying assault weapons over cheaper and far less lethal firearms. Bans on particular types of weapons tend to be more effective than all out gun bans. Rather than trying to stop all gun violence, the assault weapon ban attempted to stop certain guns from being used in such violence. As it's far easier to get one's hands on a legal firearm as opposed to an illegal assault rifle, the goal was largely successful.Law-abiding Citizens Should Not Have Access to Extremely Lethal WeaponsThis will be explained in more in-depth in the next sections. There are simply no reasons why an average citizen needs access to assault weapons. Such weapons are meant for military use, not for recreation or self-defense. The inherent danger associated with such weapons is a justifiable reason to affirm the resolution. They are unnecessary, they are designed explicitly for military purposes, and they have a huge potential for additional civilian casualties, when compared to normal firearms. Unnecessary for Home DefenseAssault weapons pose numerous risks to citizens using them for self-defense purposes in their home. Other weapons, including shotguns and pistols, are capable of adequately repelling intruders without taking such risks. For example, Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police states “An AK-47 fires a military round. In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them.” "In 2004, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons and said they "have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)Unnecessary for Self DefenseSituations in which one needs an assault weapon to defend themselves are extremely rare. Situations in which one needs an assault weapon and is currently carrying one around are practically non-existent. With the previous ban successfully lowering the amount of assault weapon violence in the United States, an average citizen will have no need to own a semi-automatic weapon for self-defense. Even if a citizen should ever face such a situation, assault weapons are generally not desirable. These guns are not designed for civilians, they’re designed for military use. An average individual will simply not be able to effectively use the weapon. For a criminal, this is not a problem: Stray bullets kill more innocent bystanders, which they see as a benefit. For self-defense, however, this should be avoided at all costs. The possibility for extra civilian casualties in a self-defense scenario outweighs the benefits of being able to shoot more often. Furthermore, anyone who is able to effectively use an assault weapon to its maximum potential will more than likely be able to outmatch an amateur criminal while using a normal firearm.Unnecessary for Recreation and SportingFairly self-explanatory argument. Semi-automatic weapons are by no means required to be effective at hunting or other recreational activities.ConclusionsAssault weapons are far too dangerous, regardless of whose hands they are in.Criminals gain more an advantage by using an assault weapon in a massacre than a civilian does. Therefore, assault weapons grant little benefit for self-defense.The previous assault weapons ban was successful in its goal: to reduce the amount assault weapons which are used in criminal acts.