March Beginners Tournament : The United States should place a ban on all semi-automatic weapons"

Burden of Proof I accept that the burden of proof is shared between me and my opponent. In this debate, I must prove that all semi-automatic weapons should not be banned. My opponent must prove that all semi-automatic weapons should be banned. Framework In this debate I will be establishing a consequentialist framework. In short, this framework will evaluate and judge the resolution to “ban semi-automatic weapons” based on the consequences associated with it. This is the preferable framework, as it provides a realistic view of all the factors affected by the resolution, allowing both the pros and the cons to be weighed against each-other, to determine whether or not the resolution is “good” or not. Contention 1 - Highly unpractical for the U.S Regardless of the statistics shown from various other countries, the fact remains that the gun culture in the U.S is much different from that of other countries. [1] With semi-automatic guns being used for many different sporting events, hunting, self-defense, etc. [2][3] A ban on semi-automatic is highly unlikely to occur, given the strong defense for the 2nd amendment by guns-rights advocates. Contention 2 - Criminals don’t listen to laws It doesn’t matter if a ban is placed on guns in general, or just specific types of guns. The fact is that only around 3%-11% of criminals commit crimes using legally obtained weapons. [4] So, banning a specific type of gun does little to nothing to solve the problem, as the majority of criminals are in fact using illegally obtained guns. Contention 3 - Black Markets As more and more guns get banned, black markets begin to spawn. With semi-automatic guns such as the AR-15 or other semi-automatic pistols being one of the most popular types of guns in modern American society [5][6], a ban on such guns would only result in increased trafficking. As a result of this, the legal system becomes occupied in cases of illegal gun trades, while crime investigators run in circles trying to solve cases in which untraceable guns are used. Increased trafficking is something I would like to place emphasis on, though. Mexico, a country that has extreme restrictions on guns, despite their gun rights [7], is known for the high number of guns smuggled through its border. Each day, around 2000 guns are illegally brought past the Mexican border per day. [8] This is a result of the extreme gun ban that exists in the country, and it is likely that the U.S would experience similar trafficking issues if certain popular gun types are banned. Contention 4 - The Second Amendment As gun control progresses in America, growing concern rises for the second amendment and its importance in modern society. To quickly explain the second amendment, it states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” [9] District of Columbia v. Heller - a Supreme Court case which took place in 2008, deemed that portions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 that required rifles and shotguns to be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" [10], to be unconstitutional. [10] There is an alarming relevance between this case, and the resolution of the debate, because both place restrictions on specific types of guns, except the resolution does this in a greater extent. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (prior to the SCOTUS decision) demanded that rifles and shotguns be in a virtually unusable state (unloaded and disassembled/bound by trigger lock). The resolution, in comparison, attempts to achieve similar results through different means, but they are still both in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the second amendment. This is because the purpose of the second amendment is to prevent government from becoming tyrannical. [11] So I ask, what is the point of a gun, or a gun right, if legislation can be passed to render them useless, as the District of Columbia attempted to do by requiring rifles and shotguns to be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock? The Supreme Court understood that this was an issue, and thus, deemed the law unconstitutional. Similarly here, an attempt is being made to render a specific type of gun useless, except in this case, it’s being done by just outright banning those guns. It’s essentially the same issue as the SCOTUS case, and should be deemed unconstitutional for the same reasons. Contention 5 - Self-Defense The average person is generally untrained in the area of using guns, making them highly dependent on ammo capacity rather than accuracy. This is why semi-automatic weapons have gained popularity over the revolver over the past ~50 years. [5] “Without a doubt, modern semi-auto pistols provide many mechanical advantages over revolvers. High ammo capacity in particular really does provide an edge that at least has the potential to increase your odds of coming out of a fight alive.” [12] In fact, an article on the WashingtonPost rates the .45 ACP 1911 as one of the best guns for home defense. [13] Contention 6 - Analysis of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban I’ll just give a quick explanation of the Federal Assault Weapon ban (AWB for short): The AWB prohibited the “manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons except for those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment.” [14] It was theorized that over time, this ban would significantly decrease gun-related deaths. This turned out to be false, but I will get to that later. The criteria for an ‘assault weapon’ can be found at [14], but the ban was largely centred around semi-automatic weapons, making it highly relevant to this debate. A - Gun Crime As I mentioned earlier, the theory that a ban on assault weapons would lower crime over time was largely untrue. The graph below demonstrates this well. [15] In fact, around the middle of the AWB (about 1999 it seems) the graph suddenly spikes up, illustrating a sudden increase in shootings, while during the other years of the AWB, the graph remains about the same as previous years, again, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the ban. What this proves, is that a ban on specific gun types is not the answer to gun-related problems, as proven by the AWB. This means that there are other factors involved, and the situation is not so straightforward. B - Contradicts the “less guns, less crime” theory Just prior to the beginning of the AWB’s effectiveness in U.S law, the production of many different assault weapons (most being semi-automatic), saw a dramatic increase in production, likely due to the sudden demand for such weapons following notice of the Assault Weapon Ban. [16] This sudden increase in production did counteract (to a significant degree), any declines in production that occurred during the period of the ban, averaging out the level of production to roughly the same as previous years. To further demonstrate this, here is a graph that displays the trend of gun ownership over the years. [17] Levels of gun ownership has remained relatively the same as the surrounding years of the AWB, therefore concluding that the AWB’s ban on assault weapons had little to no effect on gun ownership, or crime. Finally, to tie this sub-contention back to the resolution: A ban does not necessarily lower average production rates. Rather, it causes spikes in production in years prior to the ban, making the claim that a ban would lower overall production, false. Conclusion The consequences related to banning semi-automatic weapons are significant, and they significantly outweigh any possible benefits of the policy. Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com... (pg. 42)[17] http://tinyurl.com...