Assault Weapons Ban

"Understanding this, the term refers to a weapon, which the trigger is held down and sprays many bullets." The type of weapon my opponent seems to be referring to is a fully automatic firearm. Fully automatic firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934, with the National Firearms Act, which makes it mandatory to register any fully automatic weapon with the ATF, undergo extensive background checks, pay $200 as a tax stamp, and get permission from local police to own one. Fully automatic weapons were effectively banned in 1986, with the Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. This made it a felony to manufacture any new machine gun for civilian ownership. Registered NFA machine guns already owned by civilians could still be kept and transferred, each time with the full process of getting a new one before 1986. But at present, since it is illegal to make any new ones, these weapons fetch extraordinary prices, in the range of $20,000 for a registered M16. Since 1934, how many crimes do you think have occurred with legally obtained fully automatic weapons by civilians? The answer is exactly zero. Fully automatic weapons are really not suited for crimes commonly perpetrated by civilians, and are ridiculously expensive. Keep in mind criminals are usually poor and desperate for cash, and will use cheaply made guns, primarily handguns. Legally obtained machine guns are NEVER used in crimes in the united states. The term "Assault weapon" does not apply to fully automatic weapons at all in any firearms legislation, be it the 1994 Assault weapons ban, or Feinstein's proposed 2013 Assault weapons ban. These bans would not change the ownership status So what does the term refer to? It refers to SEMI-automatic weapons which have a few meaningless features, such as a pistol grip, an adjustable stock, or a barrel shroud. None of these actually make a gun more dangerous, but they might make it look a bit scarier. But what does semi-automatic mean, exactly? It means that for every time you pull the trigger, the gun fires one bullet, and reloads another. Then you have to release the trigger, and pull it again if you want a second shot. And again, and again until you feel like stopping or your magazine is empty. It's rather like the handgun my opponent described as a safer option. Clearly, there is a difference between these rifles and fully automatic rifles, which continue firing round after round ("automatically") at very high rates, up to and beyond 10 bullets per second, while you simply hold down the trigger. While these weapons can be unsafe in untrained hands, they are an EXTREMELY rare form of death by accident. Almost any other household item has killed more people in accidents than these guns. Fully automatic does not equal Semi automatic. My opponent brings up an interesting point in regards to the purpose of the ban. It is stated by politicians to be for the purpose of reducing crime, but the point of safety is not often argued. Statistically, most firearm accidents occur in hunting, where the direction of fire is not as defined as on, say, a shooting range. This means the accident will most often involve a long gun of some kind.[1] But since we have already made it clear that the ban refers to certain arbitrary sub-types of semi-automatic rifles, which are very common, it appears the ban would be irrelevant, as the type of rifle is not important in these types of accidents. i.e, it would occur whether the hunter was armed with an AR-15 or a winchester 70. The DC v. Heller decision established that firearms commonly owned for lawful purposes by civilians were indeed protected by the 2nd Amendment. The AR-15, for example, is one of the most common rifle types in the country, and is used in only a tiny fraction of gun crimes. My summary of points so far: The ban does NOT apply to machine guns, which are already essentially banned for purchase and are never used in crime. The ban classifies firearms based on arbitrary features that do not affect the functionality of the firearm. The ban would not increase safety of decrease gun crime. The ban would be unconstitutional. [1] Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck , Aldine de Gruyter 1997, 293-324