The Assault Weapons Ban

Thanks, Con-In round 1, Con argued against the assault weapons ban as unlikely to be effective, since that bill only addresses a small subset of semi-automatic weapons defined by relatively cosmetic appliances. Pro agreed with Pro that the bill only addresses a small subset, but argued in favor of the ban for exactly that reason. Accepting an inconsequential ban on assault weapons will forestall more general bans on all semi-automatics and the inadequacy of the former will inoculate against future prohibitions against the latter. In round 2, Con argues that the position of gun rights has never been stronger due to Supreme Court rulings. I'll assume Con refers to the DC vs. Heller (2008) ruling against a total ban on handguns. This is a point on which Pro and Con clearly diverge. Con rests on the strength of that decision at considerable peril. First, the decision was a highly contentious 5-4. Justice Stevens in his minority dissent characterized the decision as a major upheaval in the law and overthrow of the stare decisis established by 12 decades of US vs. Cruikshank and 7 decades of U.S. vs. Miller. The replacement of a single pro-Heller justice could tip the balance back in favor of precedence. Second, although Heller had an immediate impact on the District of Columbia and a subsequent impact on some districts, especially in the Chicago suburbs, we should note that New York and California's relatively restrictive gun laws made no change in response to Heller, and have become more restrictive since (Multiple suits in both states are still playing out in respect to Heller). Third, as pointed out in Round 1, ownership has declined by 40% over the past 40 years. If ownership continues to decline at this rate, the militia argument loses ground. That is, Scalia defines protected weapons as those in common use by the community militia. As that militia becomes an increasingly small aspect of community action and increasingly unused except in unlawful application, the definition of "weapons in common use for lawful purposes" may likely be re-defined.Yes, I understand that semi-automatics have been around a long time and certain meet Scalia's definition of common use. Nevertheless, no Supreme Court decision upholds against a reversal in popular opinion. Dred Scott vs. Sanford ruled that no African American could claim U.S. citizenship just six years before the Emancipation Proclamation. Bowers vs. Hardwick upheld Georgia's sodomy laws just ten years before Romer vs. Evans tore down the basis for discrimination against gays. As ownership declines, as non-lethal protections like tasers, cameras, alarms become more commonplace, as long as the media reports mass shootings and gang shootings accidental child deaths but rarely report successful home defense the tide inexorably turns towards increased gun control.I think the argument is increasingly evolving into an evaluation of firing rates and ammunition. For all primary lawful purposes- hunting, target shooting, self-defense, the community reasonably expects a certain amount of consideration and decision-making before every round is fired. Likewise, no lawful use of firearms in unreasonably restricted by limiting the number of rounds in a clip, for the same reason of introducing pause for consideration during reloads. I expect whole classes of firearms will remain protected by Heller for the near future, but enforcing a slower reload will gain in popularity until semi-automatics are eliminated or modified to slow fire rates. *****Polls- It's fine to view polls with skepticism, but we're looking for evidence about popular opinion. Citing a wide range of polls estimating from their average seems like the most logical evidence to present. Do you have some evidence to cite that contradict? I'll take exception to only considering the opinions of gun owners when considering gun policy. Gun violence impacts the community at large, so everybody should and will have an opinion. In fact, my argument is predicated on the irresistible weight of that majority.Statistics- The point I'm making is that 1% number can't be trusted and is probably not representative. When a shooter is caught by surprise or murders with the intent of getting away with it, that shooter will likely use a handgun. When a shooter wants to kill and doesn't much care whether he comes home again, he is more likely to take a rifle. Any statistic that doesn't include the shooters who get killed or commit suicide is going to skew low. We can agree that the numbers of rifle murders are small compared to handguns, but the mass shooters often use rifles and often do not survive and these are the cases that will provoke legislation.I think I've addressed your new arguments in part. I'll add more specific rebuts in the next round as space allows.