Restricting the type of firearms available to civilians will reduce gun death

Thanks to my opponent for both specifying the resolution as agreed, and for posting a very cogent and interesting opening argument. With that, I'll launch into some rebuttal, which will also include my case. 1. Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles. I have a number of responses here. A. It is not my burden within this debate to end all gun deaths. As such, the fact that there exists a majority of homicides that would not be affected by this specific policy change has little to do with whether my argument is net beneficial. If restrictions on semi-automatic rifles and their standard capacity magazines results in 325 fewer deaths, or even some subset of that, it still functions as a benefit to my case. I would argue that each life is valuable, and while we are going to be weighing lives against lives in this debate, those lives that are nearly certain to be saved should be preferred over the much smaller chance of their loss by handgun or other method. B. The fact that people are killed using other methods is also irrelevant to this debate. There are numerous reasons we don't heavily restrict access to knives and other cutting implements, but the deaths that result from their usage happen regardless of whether restrictions on semi-automatic rifles occur. I would argue that it's significantly more difficult to dispense death with a knife for a number of reasons (they require close range, inflict much more shallow injuries, and require a large measure of physical force), though I'll leave it to Con to make more of this argument if he wishes. C. Contrary to Con's arguments here, there are quite a few reasons to utilize rifles in all manner of shootings. It is possible to conceal a rifle, especially with the added feature of a folding, detachable or telescoping stock. This makes these rifles much easier to both carry and conceal and, as this article states, it's a common factor in mass shootings.[1] There are many other various factors that improve the effectiveness of semi-automatic rifles for mass shootings. These includes altered grips to increase the pace of shooting and accuracy, barrel shrouds to be able to fire more without releasing the handle, and a threaded barrel for silencing and suppressing muzzle flash. All of these also make their usage very attractive to mass shooters. D. Con is doing a very intriguing bit of cherry-picking here, selecting specific cases of public and mass shootings that suit his arguments, but ignoring the overall statistics of gun violence. The Mother Jones article shows that, of 143 mass shootings over the past 30 years, 28 involved the usage of rifles, 20 were assault weapons, and 42 of them used high capacity magazines.[2] If Con is looking for specific instances, look no further. Sandy Hook included the usage of a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, .223 caliber. Aurora included a Smith & Wesson M&P15 AR 15 style rifle, .223 caliber. A shooting in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon was committed by an AR 15 style rifle, .223 caliber. An IHOP shooting in Carson City utilized an AK47 variant semi-automatic rifle, 7.62x39 caliber. There are several others on this list.[3] And several more here.[1] E. My argument is not that shootings would become less frequent, though I would argue that it would reduce the number of gun deaths overall, as the lethality is significantly higher with these weapons, partially due to the additions that can be made to these weapons specifically, and also due to their ease of conversion to automatic weapons, dramatically increasing the fire rate.[4] These factors dramatically increase their effectiveness, as does the presence of high and standard capacity magazines, which, on a very basic level, allow shooters to fire more shots without having to reload. This means less time for a potential victim to escape, less time for law enforcement to arrive, less time for someone to subdue to shooter. In fact, all of the same things that Con states are harms of restricting the availability of these magazines easily apply to most criminals under such a law, who would be restricted to purchasing low capacity magazines. I agree that the hit percentage is low, that people will miss no matter what, and that most gunshots aren't going to be deadly. That means restricting the number of bullets available to these people is a benefit, since it reduces their capacity to dispense death dramatically. 2. Restricting standard (and high) capacity magazines A. As I said previously, all of these arguments serve to show the benefits of restricting access to these higher capacity magazines for the majority of criminals. Con provides a scenario where 2 people invade a home, having somehow acquired their magazines illegally. I'll provide some specific responses to this scenario in subpoints. A1. The fact that some people will break a law is not a reason to leave it off the books. That doesn't mean that the law is no good, it just means enforcement needs to be improved. A2. In order to acquire these weapons, these criminals would be forced to engage in black market. At the very least, this requires an extra step in purchase. This requires extensive contacts, increased monetary means, and stepping into what is very likely to be a very dangerous situation in a completely unregulated economic market. That means fewer are likely to do it, since the costs and risks dramatically increase, and the payoff is just getting back to where they are now. A3: There would be no deterrence that occurs as a result of legal high and standard capacity magazines. So, then, we have to analyze the capacity of individual home owners to be able to defend against home invasion in any instance. There are a lot of factors here. These people entering the home have a loaded gun ready and in hand. They could have access to body armor, and will be instigating their attack to the surprise of the inhabitants. The best we could assume for the homeowner is that their gun(s) is/are close at hand and loaded, that they're more capable of using that gun than the invader, and that they are aware of the intruder before they enter the house. That's a lot of assumptions, and any one of them being wrong puts the homeowner at a massive disadvantage. And that's not to mention that the data doesn't support the claim. "Guns are used for self defense (both successfully and unsuccessfully) by less than 1 percent of all violent crime victims. The typical gun is more likely to be stolen than to be used in an attempt to stop a crime."[5] In other words, not only are the vast majority of guns never used in self defense, but far more guns are stolen (rendering it a benefit to violent crime) than are utilized in this way. A4: Recall Con's statistics about missing shots. There are a few problems here he doesn't discuss. For one, those misses could easily be accidental shootings of other people. Many of these homes do contain multiple people, and an intruder in the home with a gun tends to make people a little nervous of anyone they see. The high capacity magazines only make these accidental shootings more likely. For another, this effort to be a hero in the face of danger tends to lead to more deaths, providing a stronger reason for violent criminals to use the weapons at their disposal, which might otherwise just be used as a threat.[6] With that, I kick it back to my opponent to counter my arguments. 1. http://articles.baltimoresun.com... 2. www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein 3. http://www.cga.ct.gov... 4. http://www.motherjones.com... 5. http://www.motherjones.com... 6. http://www.motherjones.com...