The United States Should Ban Assault Weapons

I apologize for the confusion in the previous round, and I hope that I can accurately rebut and summarize in this round.RebuttalR1: The Institution of Gun Bans Is Not UniformMy opponent suggests the uniformity of gun bans, and defines them strictly to mean the complete confiscation of various weapons, rather, this definition is unjust to the topic at hand. A federal assault weapons ban would mean the complete stoppage of manufacturing, akin to the ban in 1994, or else the ban would be blatantly unconstitutional. I am assuming the definition of a ban to be within the limits of the Constitution, which is a fair assumption.R2: The Federal Ban Fulfilled Its PurposeThe gun ban of 1994 was effective in reducing murder by assault weaponry. In a study by the Brady Campaign, it was found that there was a drop in 66% from the pre-ban rate in the usage of assault weaponry for homicide. This supports the argument that gun bans save lives, as mass shootings reached an all-time low during the institution of the ban.With a halt in the manufacturing of assault weapons, lives can be saved, and no statistics have been brought up to claim otherwise. Regardless of whether there are 90 or more than 700 lived saved annually because of a ban on assault weaponry, these are lives saved nevertheless.The same study also concluded the following: "if the Act had not been passed and the banned assault weapons continued to make up the same percentage of crime gun traces as before the Act’s passage, approximately 60,000 additional assault weapons would have been traced to crime in the last 10 years—an average of 6,000 additional assault weapons traced to crime each year."R3: There is No Reason to Own Assault WeaponryMy opponent presents a poll, which shows that 60% of the people which own guns wish to own guns because of personal safety, while 36% wish to own because of hunting/sports. Assault weaponry has been proven in my arguments above to be unnecessary for both of these purposes.R4: A Ban Will Not Take Away Guns From Responsible OwnersA ban within the limits of the Constitution, such as the federal ban in 1994, would not take away guns from responsible owners. It would simply halt the manufacturing of assault weaponry, and freeze access to these guns. Responsible owners prior to the ban would still retain their ownership rights, as per the Constitution.R5: The Gun Industry Will NOT Be BannedMy opponent claims this ban will instigate the collapse of the gun industry, however, there are no sufficient statistics to prove that the ban on the manufacture of only a particular type of gun will destroy the entire gun industry. The preventing of the manufacture of assault weaponry is not an outright ban on the whole of the gun industry.----------------------------Reiteration/ConclusionSimply put, placing a ban on the manufacture of assault weaponry is a step in the right direction. Statistics point to a reduction in gun crime from these weapons if they are barred from manufacturing; as the Brady Campaign study pointed out, proving the effectiveness of the federal ban in 1994. There is no reason why this same tactic can be used again in the present to prevent gun crime.I reiterate that a ban on the manufacture and availability of assault weaponry would save lives, as many as 700. This is proven in countless countries across the world, such as in the UK, where the gun ban reversed the arms race between criminals and the police. Since the ban, there has been little need for the police to carry much more than a taser or baton. This reduction in weaponry necessary for police would increase public liberty.Assault weapons are evidently unnecessary for activities such as hunting, as conceded by pro-gun activist Dave Kopel, and in the act of self-defense, users of these weapons risk putting innocent people, aside from the perpetrator, at serious risk. My opponent produced a poll explaining that gun owners buy weapons for precisely these reasons.In all, as a society, we need to recognize the lives saved by a ban on the manufacture of these horrendously dangerous weapons. These weapons are meant to kill; they must stay on the battlefield, in the hands of soldiers, where they belong. It is unacceptable that the practice of manufacturing assault weaponry, and making these weapons available to the public, continues to this day.I thank my opponent for this debate. Thank you for voting in advance.