Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Introduction My opponent has lain outs the goal of the ban, and I agree its goal is to cut crime. Further, my opponent brings up many points, though can be condensed into more broad characteristics of an assault rifle itself. His point on sports and crime shall be separate. Characteristics of “assault” weapons When looking into my opponents argument we see this argument is a re-occurring theme. He says its too deadly, it shoots too fast, its too scary, etc. My opponent’s first point is extremely weak. Yes, they are usually manufactured semi-automatics. What is the potency of this argument? Nothing, nothing at all. My opponent cites a statistic that semiautomatics are very deadly. But does my opponent support a ban on double action revolvers and speed reloaders? Double action revolvers actually are higher caliber and often times more potent then assault weapons. A .357 magnum revolver unleashes six bullets within 3 seconds. Many other weapons, which are lever action or pump action, if used properly, can fire as fast as semi automatic weapons. Semi automatics can only fire slightly faster then other weapons. Many of these guns can fire faster if they are gas operated (although in AW, other hunting rifles have this too). Most of these weapons are of larger caliber and therefore inflict more damage when the strike then equivalent AR type weapons. Rate of fire offers no rational basis alone too prohibit a weapon, as most weapon types are capable of fast reloading times. And other semi-automatic weapons used in, say, hog hunting would be banned and would hurt sporting with a ban in place (Being able to hit a hog multiple times is beneficial as those things are evil). Further, my opponent says it can be easy to have higher magazine capacity. But this has nothing to do with the gun, any weapon with detachable magazines is capable of many shots. Many hunting rifles can carry 30 bullets if the hunter desired [1]. As we can see, my opponent’s main analysis on “assault” weapons is bogus as it fails to prove anything with fact. Mainly speculation. My opponent then brings up a second point which can be added here – the oh my that’s scary dangerous argument – commonly rhetoric we hear from the Brady campaign. But the truth hurts. Here it is: Assault weapons are not more dangerous then other weapons, and perhaps less so. Yes, I said it, assault weapons are not more dangerous then other weapons and often times are less dangerous. Military style semi automatic weapons are no more dangerous then any other semi automatic. They often times have similar rate of fire, and their cartridge us usually smaller then its hunting equivalents. If you are worried about danger, ban thirty caliber semiautomatic hunting rifles, not assault weapons. When researching assault weapons, here is that data we obtain, “Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic version of the U.S. military's rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber, when used for hunting, are generally used on small game rather than deer. A smaller caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles.”[2] As we can see assault weapons are less dangerous then your average semiautomatic thirty caliber hunting rifle [3]. No sporting purpose? This is not self-explanatory; it is an outright lie from the gun control lobby. I daresay you tell this too 1,300 Americans who use it for sporting purposes every year. Facts show assault weapons are the most commonly used weapons in sports. Luckily, its not the burden of proof to show its purpose (though I did just now) it’s the gun control advocates point to prove why it serving no purpose means it should be banned [4]. Bad for self-defense? I have always found this odd. How would something formerly created too shoot the bad guys be ineffective in stopping criminals? Also my opponent shows its high rate of fire–if anything this proves my point–as it shows if I need 10 bullets fired into ones chest to protect myself or my family this would be a good weapon of choice. The commonly used 10 round magazine is unquestionably for self-defense, and many people own assault weapons for this very purpose. And not only would the ban hurt assault weapons, it would hurt all guns. It has been observed banning assault weapons decreases the amount of gun shows therefore lowering gun ownership meaning all methods of self defense would be at odds (less handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, everything). Banning assault weapons makes them impossible to use in defense as well as lessen the chance other guns will be available [5][6]. Effective?! Now this is the biggest scam you will get from my opponents cited Brady campaign and liberal Huffington post. In his few examples he leaves out what the research says AND how his data is faulty. My opponent uses mainly before and after data, (note this does not control that the crack-cocaine epidemic ended lowering crime the same time the AW ban passed). Using before and after averages is laughable as he only used them. It has been observed they are the second worst way to obtain data (worst is cross-sectional) as they leave out trends. For example, if crime decreased 40% before a hypothetical law and decreased 40% after the law, we see it’s clear crime dropped but that its also clear the law had no effect. And the data my opponent brought up ignores the important factors. Increased arrest and incarnation, more death penalty, less drug usages, conceal carry laws etc. When one correctly controls for these problems we see increases in crime across the board.[6] Further, many studies have looked into the assault weapons ban. Scientists that support the ban have obtained opposite conclusions of my opponent. They noted, “We cannot credit the [AW] ban with any of the nations recent drop in gun violence …”[7] My opponent cites Massachusetts, though to compare you must look at overall trends in comparison with other states. When looking at these trends we see this: “Even more interesting, the seven states that have their own assault weapons bans saw a smaller drop in murders than the 43 states without such laws, suggesting that doing away with the ban actually reduced crime. (States with bans averaged a 2.4% decline in murders; in three states with bans, the number of murders rose. States without bans saw murders fall by more than 4%.)”[8] I have spent the last month looking in to assault weapons directly. When observing newer data we see similar results. There is absolutely no credible evidence that assault weapons decrease crime. The only areas we see this data occur is on anti-gun think tanks with little to no logic on how statistics work. Lott has found their methods are fraudulent. His results yield that “each year the ban remains in effect, both murder and robbery increase about 3%. Rape also rises, but only slightly”[7] Also wheres the logic in my opponents argunment? Gun bans have rarely worked, criminals keep their guns and buy them illegally usually anyway, and assault weapons are used in less then 3% of crimes. Banning them would, at best, have no effect. At worse increase crime [1][2][6][7]. We can see that the effect is opposite of what my opponent claims and an assault weapons ban would increase crime, and not banning a ban would decrease it. Conclusion: It is clear that my opponents facts on effectiveness are false and that his point on characteristics means we would need to ban most if not all weapons which would infringe on our rights. CON has refuted all of pros points, which had many statistical and logical flaws. Vote CON. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...;