Bluesteel v. Mikal, Resolved: The US should adopt a ban on assault weapons similar to Australia's.

== Rebuttal == (1) Definition: "Assault weapons" Mikal says there are generally understood things called "assault weapons." The source he links to is Connecticut's definition of "assault weapons." First, notably, Connecticut includes a bunch of pistols as "assault weapons," including the Wilkinson Linda Pistol, which is merely a semi-automatic pistol with a 30-round magazine (so its only distinguishing feature is a high-capacity magazine). Second, every state defines the term "assault weapon" differently (a point Mikal drops), proving it is up to the lawmaker (me) to define the term. Third, Mikal drops that the proposed 2013 "Assault Weapons Ban" included a ban on *all* high-capacity magazines, so my definition is reasonable. Mikal then says that Australia classifies handguns differently than assault weapons. However, Australia does not use the term "assault weapons"; it is an American term. And the source Mikal linked to (Wikipedia) says that Australia has different categories of *permits* (Class A is for longarms, Class H is for handguns). The source says nothing about what Australia considers to be an "assault weapon." Mikal also drops the argument that it's only fair that I get to choose my own plan. He says it is infinitely regressive because I can define anything as an assault weapon, but I am limited by the term "weapon" and by the fact that Australia has to have done something "similar" to what I propose. And if anything, by banning more things, I've given Mikal more arguments to run against me, so it's not exactly unfair, especially when Mikal knew these arguments were coming prior to even accepting the debate. (2) Ineffective As I said before, Mikal never proves that gun bans are in effect across Western Europe. England has the most restrictive law, but scholars have recognized that pretty much anyone who claims they want a gun for hunting can get one in England. The UK mass shooter had an entire arsenal of guns that he claimed he needed for hunting; it's a huge loophole that doesn't exist in Australia. In addition, Mikal's source includes mass shooting deaths in countries like Italy, which allows anyone over 18 to own a gun, so his source doesn't prove gun bans are ineffective in stopping mass shootings. Very few countries in Europe completely ban guns; they just require licensing. Mikal claims that more guns mean less crime. First, he drops the argument that crimes rates in different states aren't comparable. Crimes trends in California (which had an assault weapons ban) are very different than crime trends in Wyoming (which did not). Wyoming is much more rural, for example. A legitimate study would need to control for such demographic factors. Mikal also drops that his dataset is too small to be statistically significant. Also, only seven states banned assault weapons, and they happen to be some of the most high-crime states (e.g. New York and New Jersey), so you'd expect their crime rates to increase faster than the rest of the nation. Mikal claims it is generally proven that "more guns = less crime," but the seminal John Lott study supposedly proving this was specific to concealed carry of pistols and showed the largest effect was on *robberies* (not home invasions) because robbers are more wary of robbing someone (in person) who might be armed. In contrast, burglars try to steal your stuff when you're not home, so they don't plan on running into you, and they'd be equally scared of being shot by an assault rifle or by a handgun (the latter of which you can still own under my proposal). In addition, there are also plenty of studies proving that "more guns = more crime," specifically that concealed carry laws increased the rate of violent assault by 8%. [1] Mikal claims that his study of the 1994 Ban proves that all bans increase crime rates, but his study specifically said that people substituted to using other types of guns with *high-capacity magazines.* His study proves that high-capacity magazines are *really important* in crime. If there are no guns with high-capacity magazines that people can legally substitute to, a ban *would* be effective. Mikal's own study proves that once a certain gun is banned, people find it very difficult to find that gun and use it in crime, which is why they have to look for substitutes. And guns with low-capacity magazines are not a good substitute for high-capacity ones. (3) Grandfather/Buyback "Grandfathering" means that guns purchased prior to the ban would still be legal to own. That's not the case. Mikal claims that because American culture is so pro-gun, people would not sell their guns back. However, Australian gun owners were also vociferously pro-gun, as you can see if you watch Part 3 of the Daily Show series linked above (starting at 2:39, to 4:00) http://www.youtube.com...; yet they all ultimately turned over their guns. A lot of the guns in the U.S. require a background check and a permit, which creates a record of ownership, so if the owner doesn't sell the gun back, the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) will just come and seize the gun, and the owner will get nothing. Getting $500 is better than nothing. Furthermore, 100% compliance isn't necessary to see a large effect. *Selling* the guns would carry a very stiff penalty, so mass shooters would still have a hard time finding assault weapons to buy even if some gun owners illegally kept them for private use. Mikal keeps claiming that the gun ownership rate climbed back up again in Australia, but it was people buying *different types* of guns (ones that are legal under the ban), as Mikal's own Source #9 from last round says ["the new guns were not military-style semi-automatics," they were "single bullet" hunting rifles]. Mikal claims that somehow the crime rate went *up* due to Australia's ban, which is untrue. The firearm homicide rate fell by 59% since the ban was implemented in Australia, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65%. [2] Mikal later claims his sources show a 19% increase in firearm-related murders right after the ban, but ironically, Mikal's source (John Lott) can't seem to make up his mind. Mikal's Source #9 (from last round), i.e. John Lott, actually showed a sharp decline in the firearm homicide rate following the ban (it's the dotted line and the ban happened in 1996). In addition, as Mikal pointed out already, rifles are rarely used in homicides, and although the rifle ban started in 1996 in Australia, the ban on high-capacity magazines didn't kick in until 2002. [My source #3, Rd. 2]. On Lott's other chart (Mikal's Source #8), you can see that the decline in homicide rates in Australia actually started in 2002, when the ban on high-capacity magazines commenced. (4) Rifles used in homicides Mikal next claims that mass shooting deaths are insignificant when you compare them to the overall homicide rate. However, mass shootings are a horrific event that are akin to a domestic terrorist attack. We would be willing to spend billions to prevent a terrorist attack that killed 300 people, so we should do the same to stop mass shootings. I doubt Mikal could look the parents of the Sandy Hook victims in the eye and tell them that their children were just another homicide statistic in the grand scheme of things. Mass shootings are horrific and often occur in schools (e.g. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech). They are qualitatively different than normal homicides. Also, assault rifles and high-capacity pistols are not just used in mass shootings, as I proved in Round 2. Extend my Round 2 contentions. (5) Rifles vs. pistols in mass shootings Mikal claims that the Aurora shooter switched to a Glock, which killed most of the people, but notice Mikal never provides a source for this claim. When the Aurora shooter's assault rifle jammed, he actually switched to his semi-automatic assault-style shotgun, not his Glock. [3] Most of the victims were shot with the shotgun. [3] Such a shotgun would be banned under my proposal. In addition, if the assault rifle hadn't jammed, more people would have undoubtedly died from the 100-bullet magazine. [3] Only 12 died in Aurora, despite it being a crowded movie theater, compared to 35 deaths in Sandy Hook. Aurora could have been a lot worse, and we can't count on the assault rifle jamming the next time a mass shooting happens. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...