Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Effectiveness versus Other WeaponsTo begin, I agree that I have the burden of proof. I was not claiming that con must prove the average citizen needs access to an assault weapon over other weapons. My claim is that other weapons, which con has shown are more effective in the case of self defense and sporting and recreation, and far less dangerous. Thus, assault weapons should be banned because they are unnecessary and more dangerous. My opponent has already shown that they are unnecessary in round 1. Thus, voting on this debate should be based off of how dangerous assault weapons are compared to normal firearms, and whether or not the previous ban accomplished it's goals.Necessary for Self Defense?Con's rebuttal in the last round only showed that assault weapons will still be used against police. That does not address my argument. Con has thus failed to show that assault weapons are needed for self defense, and has even shown in round 1 that there are other high caliber weapons which can do just fine.Necessary for Sporting and Recreation?The Olympics example simply isn't relevant to this case. My opponent cannot prove that "whole sports rely on assault weapons," only that people are currently using/preferring them for such sports. Con even brought up the example of hunting rifles and there effectiveness in round one. Causing .0004% of the population to switch guns to ones that are just as effective is an incredibly small impact, and just shouldn't be considered in the round.Conclusion for NecessityClearly, the average citizen does not need an assault weapon. This shows there is no reason to have them legal. Now, the other two arguments fulfill my burden of proof and show why they should be made illegal. Dangers of Assault Weapons versus Other GunsThis point wasn't really refuted by my opponent. Instead, he spent time attacking "other guns exist is an ineffective argument." So, since we're in the final round, now we just need to look at the facts. Guns in which assault weapons are used result in more bullets fired, more people hit, and more gunshots per victim. This is a fact. This was not addressed at all by my opponent. I'd like to note that because of this, con really can't address this in the next round, unless he shows where he touched on it earlier in the debate. Throughout round 2, con tried to show that other weapons have the potential to deal more damage. This is irrelevant. Assault weapons are more dangerous. Why is this? Well, I brought it up in round 3 and it was not responded to. It deals mostly with accessories in addition to the general characteristics of assault weapons. Let's look to my opponent's own evidence. For an assault weapon to be banned, it must have more than one of these accessories, and be semi-automatic. Even though each individual accessory function can be found on a specific legal firearm, the danger comes when multiple are put together on a semi-automatic weapon. (http://www.guncite.com...)Flash Suppressors: Reduce the shooters blindness. Reduces the chance of revealing a shooters position.Folding Stocks: Makes a weapon easier to conceal.Bayonet Lugs: Self explanatory. No one needs a bayonet.Grenade Launchers: Again, self explanatory.Muzzle Breaks: Makes the gun significantly more accurate and more comfortable to shoot.Once again, this was something that I brought up in round 3. My opponent's response was that it would be an effective argument if he could show that other guns were equally/more dangerous. However, he did not respond to the fact that the average assault weapon is more dangerous than the average firearm. Effectiveness of the Previous BanCon brought up a new rebuttal in round 3 specifically relating to the causality of assault weapons use in crime, rather than crime overall, which he used in round 2. Whether or not you believe I can respond to this is up to the voter. This was not an option for me to respond to earlier in round 3, (because he only brought up crime overall, which I stated was not the goal of the ban) unlike the majority of dropped arguments that I am using against my opponent, which I brought up in round 3 as the first speaker. Thus, I believe I am qualified to respond to causality, whereas my opponent did not respond in the round after I brought up causality relating to crime/rape increasing. If a voter disagrees, then that is up to them and they can discard this entire rebuttal.Con's argument relies on "you haven't proven" causality. In the case of a debate, however, it really comes down to who can make a better case for or against it. My opponent's case consisted of "historical trends," but while historical trends may have contributed to the decline, they are rarely the sole cause.A ban dries up prices (not responded to by con at all), decreases the supply (not responded to), and makes it far easier for a criminal to get their hands on other, legal firearms (not responded) This is my main case for causality, and it went unrefuted. Also note that the use of assault weapons in crimes stayed steady until 1993, the year before the ban was announced, after which it began falling increasingly fast to around 1%. CausalityMy opponent claims that the ban increases crime. My opponent also claims that there is no causal link between the ban and less assault weapons being used in crimes. This is a blatant contradiction on con's part. As I stated in round 2, "I directly attack causality on this. I agree that gun bans in general will increase crime, but not an assault weapons ban. Until con can provide some sort of reasoning as to why this is, this point cannot flow through. " In the last round, con did not show any causality between the ban and crime rates increasing, instead he simply cited more statistics. Let's restate con's analogy to show my point. A phone ban goes into place. Brain cancer falls. This is where con states that there is no causal link between brain cancer and the phone ban. At the same time that brain cancer falls, lung cancer skyrockets. Con then promptly states that a phone ban causes lung cancer. Even if the lung cancer rate (in this case, murder rate) was falling before the phone ban, that doesn't prove phone bans cause lung cancer.In the case of causality, it comes down to who can show the most, and who can best persuade potential voters. While con has addressed the point of crime increasing, he has not addressed causality for this at all. Which, again, means he can't address this in the next round. I say this more specifically because there are numerous rebuttals to causality which I could have brought up, but he never supplied causality in round 3 after I asked, and thus I there was nothing I could refute.Again, I'd like to remind voter of the fact that no new arguments can be brought up in this round. However, I'm not attempting attempting to use this rule only on my opponent. If you see anything within this round which I did not previously address, then I fully concede that point to my opponent.ConclusionOnce again, I jumped around a lot in this round. Now, I will show why pro wins the debate.Pro wins the dangers of assault weapons based on the fact that con did not respond to his arguments in round 3. Con responded to "saying other guns is worse in an ineffective argument," but that was assuming he could respond to the previous section and show that assault weapons are not more dangerous.Pro wins the effectiveness of the previous ban based on the fact that he has attempted to show causality, while con claims: "You haven't proven it." "Historical trends" may have contributed to the decline, but they were not the sole cause. Con has also not responded to pro's case for causality in round 2.Pro wins that the assault weapons ban does not increase crime, as con went the first 2 debate rounds without responding to his argument on causality.Pro wins the fact that assault weapons are unnecessary based on con's own evidence.Thus, I strongly urge a pro vote.