Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Before I begin, note an important point that my opponent has effectively conceded: That other firearms are as effective as assault weapons. With this, my 3 sections of "unnecessary for..." flow through. Con later tries to refute my point on self-defense, but he has already conceded that other high caliber and fast shooting weapons can have the same effect as an assault weapon. Con may have shown that these weapons are unnecessary, but that alone is not cause to affirm the resolution. Instead, the winner of this debate will now be decided based on who wins the effectiveness of the previous ban, and the dangers of assault weapons versus other weapons.Effectiveness of the Previous BanTo begin: I never stated that crime decreased. The point was that less assault weapons were being used in such crimes. As the entirety of my opponents refutation paragraph is citing evidence that crime did not decrease, it is effectively meaningless. Before and after averages was not the only data I used.I'd then like to restate the goal of the ban. Again, it was not to decrease crime, but it was to decrease the amount of assault weapons being used in crime. Why? Because regardless of how effective other guns can be, assault weapons kill more people. In my opponent's refutation to this study, he simply showed that others guns can also be dangerous. This is irrelevant, as it does not refute the actually findings of the study, nor does it show that these guns are replacing the banned assault weapons.At this moment, the effectiveness point is won by pro. The ban was successful in it's main goal. This point has not been refuted. Instead, my opponent attempted to show that the ban was unsuccessful in a completely irrelevant goal.Con also briefly states a statistic that "each year the ban remains in effect, both murder and robbery increase about 3%. Rape also rises, but only slightly." 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. My opponent then states that there's little logic in my argument. However, this is a refutation against gun bans in general. "Criminals keep their guns" It's important to note that everyone keeps there guns. Only guns manufactured after the ban goes into effect are made illegal. "and buy them illegally anyway." Except for the fact that when you ban a specific type of weapon, it is far easier to get one's hands on a legal firearm as opposed to an illegal assault weapon. Far cheaper, as well. I'll be addressing "assault weapons are used in less than 3% of crimes" later.Dangers of Assault Weapons versus Normal FirearmsThis is really the deciding point in this debate. Since con himself has shown other weapons to be as effective as semi-automatics, assault weapons can justifiably be banned if I can prove that they are more dangerous. Note once again that I stated the main advantage of an assault weapon is to be able to kill more people, not kill the same person faster. Therefore, my opponents statistics on high caliber, legal guns are irrelevant. This point comes down to which guns can be used to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time when in the hands of criminals. First, regardless of what my opponent states on how fast other guns can fire, my statistic about assault weapons still stands: They shoot more people. They hit more people. There are more wounds per person than other firearms, which includes other firearms cited by my opponent as "equally dangerous."Second, the federal assault weapons ban specifically targeted semi-automatic weapons with military characteristics which make them dangerous in the event of a mass shooting. Flash Suppressors, Grenade Launchers (lol), Additional Magazines, Pistol Grips, Folding or Telescoping Stocks, etc. General things which allow them to spray more bullets with minimum downtime.Third, there's a simple reason why assault weapons are the guns of choice in mass killings: They're easy to kill many people with, and they aren't too tough to get your hands on. It's a simple fact: In crimes, assault weapons kill more people. They are more dangerous. End of story.And finally, as my opponent did the same, I'm going to directly attack my opponent's logic: How can one say that assault weapons, in general, are less dangerous than normal firearms? Yes, there are going to be a few non-assault weapons that are more dangerous. This does not justify negating the resolution. We see that, when we ban assault weapons, less and less of these dangerous weapons are traced back to crime. General criminals aren't buying them anyway, they're getting the much cheaper/easier and less deadly weapons."Other Bad Guns Exist" is an Ineffective ArgumentOf course, even if I win the argument on the dangers of assault weapons, there will still be some dangerous weapons in the world. My opponent points out how I am not advocating for a ban of such guns. This is correct, yet also irrelevant. If my opponent concedes that other guns are just as dangerous as assault, yet does not show why the average citizens needs such a gun (which he has yet to do), then he isn't really negating the resolution. One cannot justify advocating against the ban because it doesn't cover enough guns. The bottom line: A lot of weapons are dangerous. Assault weapons fall under this category. Citizens should not have access to these incredibly lethal weapons. A ban will reduce the amount of incredibly lethal weapons being used by citizens, even if it doesn't completely get rid of lethal weapons. This accomplishes the second goal I mentioned in round one: to keep the most amount of lethal weapons out of the hands of the general public. Con did not attack this goal. Thus, this point helps to affirm the resolution.Unnecessary for Sporting and RecreationAs discussed above, this point is effectively conceded when con claims that other hunting weapons are more effective than assault weapons. Furthermore, 1,300 Americans out of 311 million people is roughly .000418%. This incredibly small amount of people are allowed to keep their guns, and anyone who is looking to start hunting after the ban can simply look for other, effective weapons.Unnecessary for Self-DefenseAgain, this point was conceded when con claimed that other weapons can be just as deadly as assault weapons. Furthermore, con cited a statistic that assault weapons are only used in one percent of gun crimes, and .2% of all violent crimes. Why then, does the average American need access to an assault weapon? The same statistic (http://www.guncite.com...) states that "however, a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent." Clearly, the average citizen does not need an assault weapon to defend themselves; police do. However, even without con effectively conceding this point, it was still barely touched upon. As I stated, there are very few situations in which one needs an assault weapon to defend themselves. Cons own statistics back this up. There are even fewer situations in which one needs an assault weapon to defend themselves, and has access to it. Go ahead, try to walk around with an assault rifle for self defense. It just doesn't work.ConclusionsThere's a lot of jumping back and forth in this speech. Now, I'm going to lay out what each side must do in order to win this debate, and what each side has actually accomplished.ProMust show that citizens do not need assault weapons. This has been accomplished, and con has effectively conceded this point.Must show that assault weapons are more dangerous than the average normal firearm. This, while extremely obvious, has been accomplished.Must show that the ban was effective in its goals. This has been accomplished.ConMust show that the average citizen needs access to these guns. Not accomplished.That the ban is counterproductive. Not accomplished.