Argument: Banning assault weapons increases liberty and security

Many who are pro guns argue that it would be illegitimate for assault weapons to be banned while the police have them. Police forces, however, are going to be much more likely, and able to give them up when a ban is in place. The police don’t want to be involved in an arms race with criminals to have the biggest guns; just look at the British police force where there is little gun crime and few shootings of police officers it is not felt that there is the need to have police armed with more than a taser or even truncheon. [1] Put simply a ban on assault weapons can help reverse the arms race between police and criminals.

Civil liberties would also be enhanced as law enforcement agencies would not need to devote so many resources into monitoring assault weapons purchases and those who have done the purchasing. Instead they would be able to simply target all assault weapons purchases as needing immediate attention. [2]

Finally we must remember that this ban enhances the highest liberty at all; life. Today as Justice Breyer says “gun possession presents a greater risk of taking innocent lives” than not having a gun. [3]

[1] Keating, Ruth, ‘This House would arm the police’, Peter Squires ed., Debatabase, 2011, http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law/house-would-arm-police

[2] Matthews, Jake, ‘For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America’, Harvard University Institute of Politics, 2012, http://www.iop.harvard.edu/lives-and-liberty-banning-assault-weapons-america

[3] Masters, Brian, ‘America’s deadly obsession with guns’, The Telegraph, 16 December 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9749024/Americas-deadly-obsession-with-guns.html

Candidate 1: "Banning assault weapons is an infringement on Americans freedom to protect themselves; what minor civil liberties advances may be gained pale by comparison to this.

It is also unlikely that the police and the FBI would recognise the linkage between fewer guns in the civilian population and reducing the firepower of the police. Similarly the FBI is unlikely to monitor civilians less simply because there is one less reason. The justification of “preventing homegrown attacks before they are hatched” will still remain just as strong as before they will simply be looking for different things."
Candidate 2: "The Second Amendment was not designed for only self defense and hunting. The idea that the common man should be reasonably able to protect themselves from tyranny, foreign invasion, and insurrection is a reasonable and just cause. But even if we were to accept that self defense and hunting are the only legitimate reasons for owning a gun then why should the state get to decide what weapons someone should use when hunting or defending themselves? That a gun may not be the best choice for these activities does not mean that it should not be a possible choice."
Candidate 3: "Black plastic on a gun does not make it any more lethal than other guns with wood stocks. Stopping the manufacture of such guns would hand over a lucrative market to the Russians and Chinese rather than reducing the number of assault weapons in the world. [1] Drugs cartels would simply find new routes to get the weapons they need, after all they are already dealing in illegal activities making the guns they want illegal on both sides of the border rather than just one is unlikely to stop them.

[1] Falconer, Bruce, ‘Semiautomatic for the people’, Mother Jones, July/August 2008, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/semiautomatic-people"
Candidate 4: "An assault weapons ban would violate the second amendment

The Second amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” [1] would be violated by a ban on assault weapons. This right clearly does not limit what arms a citizen may bear. The ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller clearly reaffirmed that the government can’t ban certain classes of arms and also that this right is not connected with service in a militia.

[1] ‘Second Amendment – Bearing Arms’, Findlaw, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/"
Candidate 5: "It is exactly correct that deaths as a result of assault weapons are a tiny portion of the total firearms deaths. There is also no way to know if those who were killed by these weapons would have been saved or whether their assailant would not simply have killed them with a handgun instead. Therefore to ban only certain types of guns does not address the issue satisfactorily because it does not take into consideration that any gun can kill."
Candidate 6: "It is incoherent to ban some guns

It is incoherent to attempt to ban assault weapons while allowing other weapons to remain on the streets. As professor Jacobs from New York University argues “Pistols are dangerous because they are easily carried and concealed; shotguns because they spray metal projectiles over a wide area; certain hunting rifles because they fire large calibre bullets, and certain "sniper rifles" because they are accurate over great distances. Assault rifles are not remarkable by any of these criteria.” [1] Indeed the previous ban simply used a list of guns that were banned rather than a specific definition that could then be applied universally showing the difficulty of classifying these weapons. [2] It should also be remembered that this will not affect assault weapons that are already legal in the United States so this would not even be banning all assault weapons so would leave millions in private hands, while it might be argued there is some slight difference between an assault weapon and another gun there is certainly no difference betweena a new and an old assault weapon.

[1] Kopel, David B., ‘Rational Basis Analysis of “Assault Weapon” Prohibition’, Journal of Contemporary Law, Vol.20, 1994 pp.381-417, p.404, http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/rational.htm

[2] Kobayashi, Bruce H., and Olson, Joseph E., ‘In Re 101 California Street: A legal and economic analysis of strict liability for the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons”’, Stanford Law and Policy Review, vol.8 No.1, 1997, http://saf.org/LawReviews/KobayashiAndOlson.htm"
Candidate 7: "A ban on assault weapons would not work, it will simply encourage a black market

It has already been demonstrated that most crime already takes place using other guns or even without firearms at all so it is illogical to think that this ban would make any difference to crime. For a start as the ban would not be retroactive large numbers of assault weapons would remain legally in the United States. It would create a black market in the weapons which would enrich organised crime which would simply mean that those who are intending to use those guns for ill have access to them while those who want them for self defense don’t. [1] As a response to Obama’s reelection some gun owners are already purchasing more guns and bullets, in some cases with the intention of selling them on the black market should a ban come into force. [2] It is clear therefore that the ban would do little to reduce the number of assault weapons in the United States and would likely even do little to impact on their availability.

[1] Wohlferd, Clark A., ‘Much ado about not very much: The expiration of the assault weapons ban as an act of legislative responsibility’, Legislation and Public Policy, vol.8, 2005, pp.471-484, p.480 https://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv1/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_legislation_and_public_policy/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060716.pdf

[2] Hagler, Frank, ‘Gun Sales at Record High: Sales Soar Over Fear of the Black President’, Policy Mic, November 2012, http://www.policymic.com/articles/19701/gun-sales-at-record-high-sales-soar-over-fear-of-the-black-president"
Candidate 8: "Assault weapons are not used in most crimes

There is little point in banning a type of weapon that is not used in most violence; assault rifles are used in fewer than 1 percent of all violent crimes in the united states at a time when gun violence is falling. [1] If assault weapons are not used in most crime then there is no rational basis for banning them. When the previous assault weapons ban expired in 2004 far from there being an increase in crime as predicted the number of murders declined by 3.6%. [2]

[1] La Jeunesse, William, ‘Debate answer on assault weapons ban could cause problems for Obama’, Fox News, 1 November 2012, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/01/debate-answer-on-assault-weapons-ban-could-cause-problems-for-obama/

[2] Lott, John R., ‘The Big Lie of the Assault Weapons Ban’, Los Angeles Times, 28 June 2005, http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/28/opinion/oe-lott28"

Banning assault weapons is an infringement on Americans freedom to protect themselves; what minor civil liberties advances may be gained pale by comparison to this.

It is also unlikely that the police and the FBI would recognise the linkage between fewer guns in the civilian population and reducing the firepower of the police. Similarly the FBI is unlikely to monitor civilians less simply because there is one less reason. The justification of “preventing homegrown attacks before they are hatched” will still remain just as strong as before they will simply be looking for different things.
