The US should adopt a ban on all semiautomatic firearms

Thanks for the debate Con. I’ll use this round to defend my case.D1) HomicidesThe study on gun ownership vs firearm homicides does account for potential confounding variables. Con quoted the bivariate analysis, which only involved the one predictor variable of gun ownership. In the overall study, the researchers state that they “examined the relationship between gun ownership and age-adjusted firearm homicide rates...with adjustment for age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment....After we controlled for all the measured potential confounding variables, rather than just those found significant in the final model, the gun ownership proxy was still a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates” [1]. Correlation is not causation in studies that aren’t experimental, obviously, but the findings *were* statistically significant, meaning that the null hypothesis could be thrown out.Con asserts that overall homicide is more important than firearm homicide when assessing the effect of gun laws on murder rates. This makes absolutely *no* sense, because my premise was that banning semi-automatics would sharply reduce gun-related fatalities. How is the overall homicide rate relevant when we’re trying to single out the causes of death by guns? Con needs to show why non-gun homicides matter when discussing gun laws, but not one attempt to do that is made.Con doesn’t dispute that firearm homicides decrease as a result of prohibiting semi-automatics, and because no relevance between overall homicides and effectiveness was drawn, he has effectively conceded that a semi-automatic gun ban would save thousands of lives. Con loses on the spot if he doesn’t dispute that my proposal would save this many lives, as this impact is impossible to overcome (since human life is the most worthy of preserving).The US is indeed #88 in homicides, but as I explained above, the gun murder rate is what’s relevant. In that area, the US stands at #10 [2]. The countries that are above the US are incomparable in terms of socioeconomic status: their overall incomes and per-capita GDPs are lower, as well as their education levels. Countries like the Philippines, which is at the #6 place, struggle with drug trafficking [6], in which gangs will often fight the police. In my opening case, I explained how the US stands *way* above countries that can be compared to the US, in that they are developed and have higher incomes. It’s not even a contest: the U.S has a gun murder rate of 29.7 per million, which is nearly quadruple the rate of the 2nd highest, Switzerland, at 7.7 per million [4]. Below is a graph [11] illustrating this point: One has to seriously reach to somehow conclude that so high gun murders are due to something other than gun ownership levels. The US doesn't have significantly more crime than other developed countries, so for firearm homicides to be so high does say something.D2) Mass shootingsCon tries to minimize the impact that mass shootings have, but the the psychological and emotional tolls they take on the the country shouldn’t be downplayed. It’s wrong to say they are statistically insignificant when they attract significant media coverage and draw reactions from celebrities and politicians alike. It affects not only those who perished, but those who survived, the families and friends of the survivors, their neighbors, etc. There’s also evidence that mass shootings inspire copycats, with 20-30% of mass shootings having been inspired by a previous tragedy [5]. This is especially worrying considering how more frequent they’re becoming, with 3 of the most deadly ones in US history having occurred in the past couple years [6]. In essence, they’re quite contagious, and something *must* be done to stop them.The isolated example of Columbine doesn’t prove that Assault Weapons ban was overall ineffective. There were fewer mass shootings during the ban (1.6 per year) than before (2.05 per year) or after (4.18 per year) [7]. The ban had many problems anyway, such as only prohibiting 18 firearm models, but allowing other slightly-modified versions of those guns to be sold on the market. AWs that were manufactured before 1994 were also perfectly legal to own or sell during that time, since no sort of buyback was implemented [8]. Considering the above, as well as how soft the penalties are for straw purchasing, it’s not much of a surprise that one of the Columbine shooters had a TEC-9. Under my proposal, however, it would be far more difficult for that to happen.As for the 2015 Paris attacks, the terrorists’ guns originated from the Balkans, where gun laws are looser and the firearm trafficking market is much shadier [9]. The US doesn’t have this problem because guns aren’t often trafficked into our country; it’s the other way around: Mexico has a problem with *our* firearms making their way into their country [10]. Regulations do work, but if a state is bordering another that doesn’t responsibly control the circulation of its guns, than problems can surely arise. In the last round, I spoke about how states with looser gun laws tend to be the origin for gun trafficking, whereas states with stricture gun laws are the destination. If laws were tightened federally, this discrepancy between different states wouldn't exist, meaning the firearm trafficking vaccuum would be shut off.D3) SuicidesAgain, the “overall rate matters” assumption here is unfounded. Con states “Obviously fire-arm suicide will reduce if there are no fire-arms but it doesnt show that overall suicide reduces.” This is a concession. My original premise, that reducing firearms reduces suicides that would otherwise be committed with a firearm is undisputed. Con tries to say that people will still have other ways to kill themselves, but *even* if we buy this, I’ve explained how suicide attempts via a firearm succeed more often than other methods, so if semi-automatic guns were to be taken away, that deadlier option would be unavailable, meaning that suicide attempts would fail at a greater rate. Con sidesteps this impact.Furthermore, it’s a bare assumption to say someone who is suicidal always has another way. Suicide is usually attempted in-the-moment, when someone reaches such a low that they can't be talked out of it. In this critical instances, eliminating as many means of carrying out the act could be life-saving; it takes much less time and effort to fire a gun than it does to tie a noose and hang it from the ceiling, for instance. Rarely are people suicidal 24/7; rather, it takes a catalyst to propel someone into that situation.ConclusionAs we hold more equal burdens in this debate, the net impacts our cases have should be analyzed. My case demonstrates how lives would be saved, and how gun violence in the US would be significantly reduced. Con’s case is merely defensive; he argues why a ban might not work, but little is said about how overall detrimental it would be. Even if he manages to show negatives of it, he still has to *somehow* outweigh the impacts of 30,000 lives being saved, which he didn't come close to doing when he evaded my firearm-related murder and suicide contentions.Sources1. Source 2 of affirmative case2. http://bit.ly...3. http://n.pr...4. http://bit.ly...5. http://bit.ly...6. http://bit.ly...7. http://bit.ly...8. http://wapo.st...9. http://thebea.st...10. http://n.pr... 11. http://bit.ly...