Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Effectiveness My opponent has claimed I showed they are “less” effective and “less” dangerous. But this is not the case–this is not the case at all–I showed other weapons are more dangerous then assault weapons, and that other weapons can be more effective. I showed for sniping hunting rifle is more lethal. I showed in close combat a shotgun would be preferred (or a pistol), and that assault weapons are an all around weapon. Not the most effective at all of these ranges (though excellent for medium range), it is more universal. Making it hugely effective. And I then showed other weapons are much more dangerous. I showed other hunting weapons have the same qualities and larger calibers, making it more dangerous. I again bring the quote from John Lott to hammer it in and show the logical flaws in my opponents argument, “Banning some semiautomatic guns when there exist other semiautomatic guns that fire the same bullets as the same rapidity and so the same damage cannot be expected to have much of an impact” [1]. My opponents point, as we can see, is extremely weak. Police My opponent dropped my point on self-defense, and therefore I win the point. And continuing on police. Showing it occurs at the same rate is a very effective point for my side. It shows your banning something irrationally. You are taking away an effective mean of self-defense in protection of police. But government researchers (and Lott as cited last round) have shown it has no effect, and can increase its usage. Therefore, this means your banning something with no benefit (as pro you need to prove a benefit), and it may make them less safe meaning its counter productive and therefore a negative [2][3]. The point does refute yours, and is a very effective point. It means this point, too, is weak and is in cons favor. Necessity Something does not need to be necessary for it to be legal. This computer I am using isn’t necessary, but it is legal. And its deadly as many people waste away on them. But it is useful, so it’s legal. I have shown Assault weapons are very multi function tools and actually decrease crime [2], therefore it helps society by increasing safety and security. Its multi function ability means it is necessary. And, ya know, it looks cool. Dangerous!!! It was indeed refuted, actually. I have shown assault rifles are one of the least dangerous weapons you can own, mainly as they have lower calibers. The “other guns” point is an effective one as it refutes the very logic of a ban. If you’re worried about it being dangerous, then all guns should be banned. As my opponent offered this solution as my hunting rifle is much more dangerous, he concedes the logic is flawed, indirectly of course. I know this is repetitive, but this logic refutes the whole argument. Lets go Lott again, “Banning some semiautomatic guns when there exist other semiautomatic guns that fire the same bullets as the same rapidity and so the same damage cannot be expected to have much of an impact” [1]. In all seriousness, this proves the point. Say assault weapons are dangerous… So are other guns… don’t ban those guns, they’re fine. Only ban the scary looking one!! How logical is that? Not at all. It proves my point. And, anyway, guns that are actually dangerous are very common [1][2]. And to the accessories point, the source we both cited shows many normal weapons have these accessories. Therefore most semi-automatics would have to be banned. And furthermore, these accessories make it more effective for self-defense. Therefore it adds together a point for con, not pro. The average assault weapon is less dangerous because: (1) Smaller caliber (2) Smaller caliber, same rate of fire (3) Less accurate and range (4) Heavier and bulkier then a handgun, making a semi automatic handgun more deadly in many situations We see assault weapons are more versatile, but not more deadly. This is my opponent’s problem, and the point is illogical for him to argue. Effectiveness He has conceded my statistics in round two. He claims it lowers assault weapons used in crime. I provided counter evidence. He just said “in my opinion” basically. Facts > my opponents opinion. He dropped it raises crime. I showed it raised crime and therefore harms society as a whole. Regardless of its method. So yes, leave it to the voters, the choice it obviously con. Lets to a basic point and rebuttal my opponents thesis uses: It lowers AW crime R. This has been refuted on an academic level. It has been shown that previous trends are the reason for the decline and other factors, not the ban, caused the drop [3]. And it has been shown to increase crime [1][2]. So it increases deaths. Regardless of its weapon, it is still an overall negative to the ban. So summary of this: 1) raises crime, 2) does not lower AW crime. My opponents rebuttal is merely it is “rarely” a sole factor previous factors account for it. This is an appeal to probability fallacy, and, therefore, is not a valid argument. Further, I have shown most academics believe its success is “mixed” and its likely other factors account for the AW ban [3]. My opponent only argued opinion; he added no logic nor facts. Therefore my argument is logically superior. Causality And my opponent made a new argument last round. This is a conduct violation, and conduct points should be given to con. And this point is a trap. First, causality is weaker once you control for other factors. The studies cited to this, making it harder to claim causality. Further, if results are replicated it makes it less likely it is merely a causation. Each time it is replicated (for example, if it happens in Hawaii then California) it decreases the chance it is mere correlation. In every ban, it has occurred. Lott tried to control for other variables to see if the results changed. Nothing happened. The most comprehensive data shows an increase in crime [1][2]. Causality is highly unlikely, and the results are clear. Assault weapons increase crime. And other studies claim it had no effect [3]. Therefore, both prove my point as it shows the ban has no positive effects, and only negative ones are possible. This means pro has failed to prove differently. Conclusion: PRO has… failed to prove the ban is beneficial. He has the burden of proof to prove this, it was never done. He has… not proven assault weapons are any more dangerous then guns he thinks are “useful”, therefore both main fields of the debate support CON. And arguments are easily con. PRO brought up many new points last round, conceding conduct, therefore a 4-0 in CONS favor is in order. [1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010 [2] Lott, John R. "The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong." Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003. [3] Christopher S. Koper “An Updated assessment of the assault weapons ban: Impacts on gun markets and gun violence (1994-2003)” Department of Justice, (July 2004).