3rd DDO Census Debate: Gun Ban
The USFG Should Ban Private Ownership of Firearms.
As the US homicide rate continues to concern citizens, and guns continue to be the weapon of choice, the topic of Gun Control has become a talking point of all the US. Some, however, believe the very ownership of firearms causes homicides, no many the controls placed on them. Back with acedemia and real world examples, both sides have made great strides in the argument for the complete banning of the private ownership of firearms in the US.
- No kritiking.
- The Burden of Proof may be discussed during the debate.
- Proper formatting must be used (and consistent.)
- First round is for acceptance and clarification only.
- By accepting the debate you agree to the rules and definitions.
The winner shall receive a choice between a $25 gift card to Amazon or Walmart.
Pro side is represented by FamousDebater, and advised by FortisAnimi. Con side is represented by Bsh1.
USFG - United States Federal Government
Should - used to express obligation or desirability.
Ban - to legally prohibit
Private - belonging to an individual person, company, or interest, as opposed to belonging to a government.
Ownership - the act, state, or right of possessing something.
Firearms - a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder.
I will not have an adviser, but I am fine with this.
I'm am going to running the affirmative equivalent to a counterplan (ie. a plan). My plan will consist of 2 sub-sections.
b) After 20 years gun usage should be extremely restricted. At this point a change from the current point of restriction to a ban will be so small that the change will create minimal concern and anger. Furthermore there will be no major impacts to gun culture in the US.
Since my counterplan ultimately leads to a gun ban it is still sufficient to fulfill my burden since my burden requires me to prove that guns should be banned and under my plan guns are still being banned, just over a long period of time. By introducing my plan it increases the feasibility of the plan as well as the fact that it reduces the negative response that would occur if a gun ban was immediately introduced at this point in time.
I’m going to begin by proving moral realism (which I have been researching since my last debate on the subject) as my metaethical framework. So now I will present my argument to prove objective morality.
I will be using the ontological argument for moral realism by Michael Huemer, Professor in philosophy. His ontological argument for moral realism is as follows,
(1) The probabilistic reasons principle
(2) If we know that action X is objectively wrong, then we get a reason to not perform action X to be moral
(3) Even if we don't know that action X is objectively wrong, it doesn't provide us a reason to *do* action X
(4) There is some non-zero probability that moral realism is true (i.e. moral realism is possible)
(5) It follows that, in order to not risk X being objectively wrong, we ought not to do action X
(6) Also, we have a reason to avoid performing action X
Action x is the action that we are trying to prove objectively wrong (in this case guns).
The probabilistic reasons principle (PRP) is described by Huemer: “ [I]f some fact would (if you knew it) provide a reason for you to behave in a certain way, then your having some reason to believe that this fact obtains also provides you with a reason to behave in the same way." 
P2 is a truism.
P4 is a truism.
P1. The individual's opinion ought to be considered in society, ergo, you ought to agree to an individualist view. Laws must be in the best interest of the citizen. Voters ought to buy the individualist framework.
P2. The individualist has the right to life and we should be prioritizing them (as per the framework). If I am able to prove that guns cause deaths and violate the needs of the individual then I fulfill my burden and fulfill the debate.
The Murder Rate
All we need to do is analyze this graph to understand that the murder rate via guns in the US is significantly higher than we need it to be.
The trend is evidence. In Japan there is a full gun ban (for citizens which coincides with the resolution) and Japan has the lowest gun related murders as shown on the graph. South Korea has ‘one of the most restrictive gun policies in the developed world,’ . South Korea is the second least on the map. In Iceland guns are only allowed for target shooting and you need a special license for this. All other guns are strictly forbidden in all circumstances . The list goes on and it surprisingly goes almost completely through the list in order from the most gun restrictions to the least. There are, of course, a view fluctuations but there are few. The correlation is clear, the countries the more restriction on guns, the less deaths. The countries with complete bans on citizens have gun deaths of extremely low quantity. The less guns, the less deaths.
Furthermore, multiple reliable studies have shown that guns result in death. Harvard T.H Chan, School of Public Health, concluded from their studies,
“a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.” 
In the US there were 372 mass shootings, 64 of which were school shootings . This ultimately means that babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, adolescents, adults and the elderly are being killed by guns. 13 toddlers accidentally killed themselves in 2015; 18 injured themselves; 10 injured other people and 2 killed other people.
In the United Kingdom they have a complete gun ban for citizens, which is what I am affirming . In the UK the youngest person to ever kill somebody in recorded history has been 12 . In 2015 alone 2 toddlers killed other people. The comparison is notable, in one year two toddlers kill two people (as a result of guns) which is something that has never happened in the history of the UK (a country with guns banned).
Accidents and Consequences
15,000 to 19,000 deaths are as a result of accidents in the United States . Causing a gun related accident and being the person responsible means that you could suffer from mental health problems.
Proceeding an accidental shooting with a gun, suffering from mental health problems is not uncommon . By banning guns, you make virtually impossible to kill somebody accidentally since accidents are not committed by murderers who may have illegal guns, they are usually committed by people with legal guns who are law abiding citizens (hence why they suffer from mental health problems afterwards in most cases).
I have shown that moral realism exists and that individualism is the best perspective to view this debate upon. I have also shown the high death statistics caused by guns (which is a clear violation of individualism). Whilst I do have some more characters, I believe that I have said enough to support my side in the debate with the argument that I have presented. Ergo, you ought to vote in my favor. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro!
A. Pro should defend a single, consistent position. Pro has offered a plan and should not make retroactive additions or modifications to it because any changes would involve shifting the goalposts. Any criticism I make could be countered by Pro saying, "oh, well, I am just going to change my plan so that your attacks don't apply." This is not only unfair because it shifts ground, but it creates a time skew in that I am forced to spend more time detailing my positions and responding to the shifting ground than Pro is forced to spend actually shifting the ground. Plus, if Pro makes modifications, I may not have the opportunity to make non-new arguments against them, putting me in a catch-22 situation in terms of wanting to win and wanting to not violate common standards of debate ethics.
B. The word "ban" implies confiscation. If you "legally prohibit" the "private ownership of firearms" you are saying that it is illegal to merely own a gun. Thus, anyone owning a gun would either have to surrender their gun or have their gun confiscated. This is a form of theft. Theft is, a priori, immoral, and a clear violation of our property rights, and perhaps also other rights like privacy, freedom, recreation, etc. Therefore, you should presume Con, because if all else is equal, we should still reject theft.
Pro's plan will not change the deeply rooted gun culture present in the US--it will take far more than 20 years to change that. His plan will also, because of its prolonged nature, (1) give the right-wing years to recruit and fear-monger, (2) be met with increasingly frustrated and violent resistance, and (3) be harder to implement because of the risk of changing administrations and rising opposition.
Pro writes: "since it is possible that X is objectively wrong then we ought to consider it as objectively wrong so as not to violate morality and moral principles." This conclusion is absurd on its face. Any action has some non-zero probability that it is wrong, ergo, it is always possible that any action is objectively wrong. If it is possible that any action is wrong, and if we ought to consider any action that is possibly wrong as wrong so as to not violate morality, then we must consider ALL actions as morally wrong. This is contradictory, absurd, and illogical, and would put us in a double-bind, since both of our positions are potentially wrong. For this reason, we can reject Pro's meta-ethical "proof." If Pro cannot warrant his meta-ethical system, then he cannot similarly warrant his normative ethical system, since this presupposes moral realism.
A. Pro provides literally zero reason why individual's opinions should matter in society. A hyper-collectivist moral view might disagree, and so Pro cannot simply take it as axiomatic that this is the case. Moreover, even if such opinions mattered, it is a non-sequitur to say that this proves individualism. Certainly, collectivists can acknowledge the importance of the individual while still asserting the primacy of the collective. Pro, in P1 alone, thus commits bare assertion and non-sequitur fallacies.
B. Turn: Individualism supports the Con position. "The gist of individualism is, then, that everyone must consent to being used by another. This is because each is important, valuable in his or her own right. And if an individual is important as such, then there is a sphere that constitutes the individual's realm of sovereignty and others ought to respect it...That is exactly why the right to private property is vital. When effectively protected, it secures for human individuals a sphere of personal jurisdiction, the right to acquire and hold the props, as it where, with which to order one's life."  Property also offers an essential tool for individuals to pursue their purposes (self-actualization). Thus, individualism supports property rights, and, as, I explained in OVB, Pro violates property rights.
C. Pro's weighing calculus is saving lives. If he can't show he saves lives with his plan, he cannot link.
A. Pro is committing a correlation/causation fallacy. Just because the bottom 3 countries have fewer guns does not mean that this is the cause of their low gun homicide rate. Norway, Austria, France, Iceland, Australia, Greece, and New Zealand all are among the top 30 gun owning countries in the world,  but are in the bottom 19 of Pro's chart. Iceland has virtually no gun homicide rate at all. Israel also has a large number of guns in homes due to military service. And, if you look at homicides per capita  versus gun ownership per capita  there appears to not even be a correlation--countries like Nigeria, DRC, Brazil, and Russia have few guns, yet many murders, while the opposite is true for Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Germany. There are three possible takeaways: (1) culture, not gun ownership, causes the correlation (confounding variable), (2) other gun-owning countries have better regulations or training regimes (we can solve the problem by implementing better regulation instead of a ban), and/or (3) there is just no correlation at all, and Pro's chart cherry-picks what nations it looks at.
B. The UK is not a good comparison to the US: (1) the UK is an island, making it harder for smugglers to bring illegal guns to the UK market; the US has, on the other hand, extremely porous land boarders that are hard to police; (2) the UK doesn't have the US gun culture; guns in the UK were mostly used for sport and hunting, and it never developed the kind of frontiersman/Revolutionary culture that the US did, where guns were closely connected to personal liberty.
C. Banning guns will increase gang violence. Banning products creates black markets for them. Supply and demand indicates that, when demand remains, consumers, particularly in gun-loving societies, will seek other sources of the product. For instance, prohibition in America spurred the growth of gangs (like Al Capone's) which would supply alcohol illegally. "Semi-automatic and automatic firearms are banned [in France], but that hasn't...stopped them in increasing numbers...The numbers of illegal weapons in France have increased by double digits for years."  "[G]ang members are increasingly engaging in...weapons trafficking...Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities."  This has two impacts: (a) a gun ban will not necessarily be effective at reducing the number of guns in circulation, and (b) a gun ban will provide a new source of revenue for gangs, especially as more people seek illegal sources of guns because they cannot get them legally.
D. Banning guns will increase right-wing violence. Militia groups in the U.S. grew 37% in 2014, and grew significantly also between 2008 and 2011.  "That growth is likely to continue as the groups recruit more members with a pro-gun message...[A] gun control movement...is intensifying anti-government rage and will lead to more growth for the groups.' The Bundy Ranch and Oregon Wildlife Reserve examples show that these groups are able to mobilize resources and manpower to contest government authority. Right-wing extremists have actually killed more people since 9/11 than terrorists motivated by al-Qaeda’s ideology.  The groups are very well armed, and have "the capacity for a terrorist attack...to be as deadly as any foreign jihadist attack."  The impact of this is clear: banning guns creates a political optic that will fuel dangerous, right-wing extremists.
E. Guns are key to self-defense. "[V]ictims are hospitalized with an 85% recovery rate; but criminals shot by victims face a 'Hobson’s choice': hospitalization with imprisonment or eschewing medical care at the risk of death. A criminological study found that for those attacked by criminals 'resistance with a gun appears to be the most effective [response]'...The same study also noted that 'the use of a gun by the victim significantly reduces her chance of being injured.' A U.S. National Crime Victimization study concluded that defending against felons with a gun helps victims 65% of the time and make things worse only in about 9% of the time."  This has two impacts: (a) gun bans reduce the deterrent effect of gun ownership on crime by removing the threat of the Hobson’s choice, and (b) gun bans remove an effective tool of self-defense from the toolkit.
F. Gun bans will be disproportionately enforced in minority communities. "Last year, 47.3 percent of those convicted for federal gun crimes were black--a racial disparity larger than any other class of federal crimes, including drug crimes."  This will intensify the cycle of oppression in communities of color.
G. Many won't comply with a ban, forcing the USFG to arrest citizens and pay (likely hefty sums) for the operation.
A. Safety features solve. "Federal law imposes no design safety standards on domestically produced firearms. As a result, many firearms are manufactured and sold in the U.S. without undergoing appropriate safety testing and without including basic safety features."  "Although unintentional or accidental shootings account for a small share of firearm related mortality and morbidity, these deaths and injuries are highly preventable through proper design of firearms." 
B. Accidental deaths are only a small part of the total gun issue, and my other impacts (gangs, right-wing violence, etc.) outweigh.
1 - http://www.iep.utm.edu...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://tinyurl.com...
4 - http://tinyurl.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
6 - http://tinyurl.com...
7 - http://tinyurl.com...
8 - http://tinyurl.com...
9 - http://tinyurl.com...
10 - http://tinyurl.com...
11 - http://tinyurl.com...
12 - http://tinyurl.com...
13 - http://tinyurl.com...
14 - http://tinyurl.com...
OBV 1: My opponent attempts to refute my framework however they provide no alternative framework. Due to the fact that the framework is the equivalent to the debate onset, no matter how mitigated or refuted it may be, it still stands due to the fact that there is no alternative that judges can look at from my opponent.
OBV2: In response to my opponent’s first overview, I would like to assure them that I will not be shifting the goalposts. I have told my opponent what my plan is and I will be sticking to that plan throughout the entire debate. There will be no shifting of the goalposts.
My opponent makes the argument of confiscation which is something that I’d like to quickly address before going into the counter rebuttals. Over the 20 year period of time, as gun laws get stricter this ultimately means that more people will be losing their privileges to own guns. Therefore, the confiscation will not happen in one day. It will happen over the 20 year period and when guns are finally banned (as I said in the plan), the difference will not be significant because the control and restriction on guns will be immensely high. Therefore, guns will be collected in small quantity over time. If there is any resistance then we will be able to handle it because it won’t all come in one large group of people. It will happen in small amounts over time as we slowly increase restriction.
My opponent’s rebuttal is largely based on his own beliefs of what will happen. He offers no source of information to prove that it will take more than 20 years to do this. It is completely arbitrary. Furthermore, I have shown (see my confiscation rebuttal) that because it is done in small amounts over the 20 year process then this ultimately means that violence will be in minimal quantity and due to the fact that it will be spread out over a longer period of time this allows the police and the government not to be overwhelmed with lots of violence at once.
As addressed in my observations, my opponent provides no alternative to moral realism or my entire framework for that matter. You ought to buy my framework because it is the only framework that has been presented. I will, however, provide a rebuttal regardless.
Whilst it is true that the argument does work with anything the purpose of the argument is that value X can be substituted for things that people are unclear on or there is a relatively split opinion on the issue. For example, murder is commonly considered as wrong. Some people (usually nihilists) will argue that murder is neither right or wrong. Since there is a clear disagreement here we ought to look at murder and substitute it for value X. Things like breathing and eating are not usually considered to be objectively wrong actions and therefore it is unnessary to substitute value X for actions like these examples . Even if my opponent does not necessarily find this argument persuasive by objecting to it means that they object to moral realism.
A. My opponent falsely states that I provide no reason as to why individual’s opinions matter in society. I specifically said that ‘laws must be in the best interest of the citizen,’ I expanded on this further when I said ‘guns cause death and violate the needs of the individual,’ giving you more reason to presume pro. Stating that I gave no reason is a use of litotes which is dismissive of my case. I also understand that collectivists can acknowledge the moral value of the individual but I am stressing that the moral worth of the individual is the most important view to consider in the debate since this is ultimately revolves around the issue of protecting the individual from harm.
B. Of course property rights is important within the ideology of individualism however it is considered to be more important to preserve the individual's life rather than their property rights since without their life they cannot have their property rights. Ergo, individualists value the individual’s right to life over their property rights .
C. I agree. I am weighing this using the life system since an individualists beliefs coincide with utilitarianism in the respect that the more lives lost, the worse. Therefore 1 life is less important than more than 1 life.
My opponent doesn’t account for the fact that the graph goes from (more or less), most - least restrictive in terms of guns. Norway has high gun control  which means that gun violence is lower (notice how it still has gun violence whereas the countries with complete bans don’t). I am not saying that restriction is not effective, if I was saying that then I wouldn’t have included 20 years of restriction in my plan. I agree that restriction does decrease gun violence but I also agree that gun bans reduce it more. It is important to note that the countries with complete bans have extremely little - no gun violence whereas countries with less restriction and higher gun quantity have more. Whilst in the middle (countries with various restrictions) there is some uncertainty in the statistics it is clear that the countries with bans have less gun violence than the countries with guns. This is undeniable since the graph blatantly shows this. Austria also has gun restrictions that my opponent fails to account for . In France guns are only allowed with hunting or shooting licenses  and since I am only advocating the private ownership of guns (as per the resolution), this means that that France already has the system that I propose, my opponent directly concedes that France has low homicide rates.
Similarly you need a special license in Iceland. You need to provide a valid reason to posses one in Australia (and the self defense excuse doesn’t work because anybody could say this). Greece has extremely strict gun control. New Zealand is a slight exception however many firearms are banned in New Zealand however restriction isn’t as harsh . My opponent fails to understand that whilst there are a few fluctuations in terms of countries with few guns or gun restrictions, all of the countries with gun bans have extremely few - no gun deaths annually. My opponent says that culture is often a cause. This is true however under the heading of culture comes guns (ie. gun culture). I agree that culture can affect it however guns are a large part of US culture . As the graph shows, all countries with gun bans are at the bottom of the graph. Not some. All.
I agree that the UK doesn’t have a similar gun culture however the issue of culture will be removed under my plan. The problem of borders is not a problem that we need to be concerned about. The overview of border control shows that they are doing a job beyond sufficiency in protecting the US borders from illegal importations and exportations .
The black market is not necessarily going to grow as large as people think that it will. Comparison between the black markets of countries such as the UK show that black markets will not necessarily come about and can only be very temporary and then can go away . Weapon trafficking is possible but will only be temporary (how long that time period will be is difficult to determine).
These right wing extremists that my opponent refers to will be combated by the police force. Please bare in mind that I only advocate a ban on guns for citizens. The police will still have guns and the right wing extremist’s motive is to target the government and the police , not the citizens. Ergo, citizens will not be a prime target. The people that will need to defend themselves are people that aren’t citizens (e.g police), who will still have guns to defend themselves.
0.16 - 3.2% of the time guns are used successfully in self defense . In fact, you are 2.7 times more likely to kill a family member or yourself with a gun than you are to kill a criminal / intruder . Even by assuming that my opponent’s statistics are true that only means that 65% of the 0.16% of self defense incidents are successful. Under the individualist framework this is small since even less than the 0.16 % of gun crimes are successfully defended against with guns this means that the rest of the 96.80% - 99.84% crimes are not defended against.
My opponent assumes that the fact that 47.3% of gun arrests were black people means that there is racism and inequality in the system. This may be due to the fact that statistically speaking black people are more likely to commit gun crimes .
Of course many won’t comply with the ban if it is a large and abrupt change. Under my plan, however, the change won’t be immediate and resistance will be minimal.
Of course guns are supposed to be made properly however that doesn’t allow you to escape the reality that it does happen. Of course they are supposed to be that way but that doesn’t change the fact that it does happen as my contentions proved.
 Huemer, Michael (1992). "Moral Objectivism". Retrieved 2013-09-18.
 Savage, Sam L. (2012), The flaw of averages http://www.usnews.com...
Pro misunderstands my point re: confiscation. Pro drops that theft is, a priori, a bad thing to do and that bans equate to theft. Since theft is normally wrong, if Pro cannot offer compelling evidence for the morality of a ban, then we should default Con. It also means Pro has a greater BOP, because he must to overcome the hurdle of proving theft to be acceptable. Pro drops this presumption argument. Since any arguments against these (or any other) drops would be new in the final speech, Pro should not be allowed to respond.
A. Pro agrees.
B. Pro claims my points here are largely opinion. In fact, (3) was purely factual. A 20 year program would span 3-5 Presidencies, and the more people that sit in the Oval Office, the greater probability that at least 1 of them will object to restrictive gun policies, esp. when a large slice of the electorate is heavily pro-gun. Pro effectively drops (3); extend it. (1) and (2) are obviously true, in that the NRA opposes even commonsense regulations and in that the political environment is hyper-partisan. Pro cannot assume that moving slowly will automatically lull people into a sense of security. Every single regulation will be opposed. Every single regulation will be used to inflame the right-wing. And, with every single successfully passed regulation, the right will become more panicked, inflamed, desperate, and angry.
C. In order to save space, I will agree with protecting life as the weighing mechanism for the round. Pro agrees to this in R3 and notes that this is his ultimate goal in his R2, second syllogism. Consequently, this debate will hinge on whichever side saves the most life, after factoring in the presumption.
A1. Pro is called on by the resolution to argue for a ban of private gun ownership. Not a ban of some private gun ownership, but a ban on private ownership itself. This means that if all guns should be banned except hunting rifles owned by licensed and skilled hunters, you would still vote Con. Pro can only argue for regulation as a transitional phase, not as the end result. Insofar as places like Austria, Norway, Iceland, Greece, Australia, and (yes) France allow the private ownership of some guns in some cases, they are Con ground. To clarify, licenses which allow hunters and shooters to privately own guns still allow private ownership. Pro basically attempts to take out my examples by saying "hey, these places have regulation." Okay, so what? If Iceland can have virtually zero gun deaths, if Australia, Austria, Germany, etc. can have low gun deaths, without actually banning guns, why not regulate as an alternative to banning? Indeed, balancing the right to safety (smart regulation) with the right to property (ownership of guns) may be productive. If regulations are so effective, as Pro claims, why go to a ban, and so heavily violate the right to property?
A2. Pro drops my evidence showing that, globally, homicides per capita and gun ownership rates per capita don't correlate; this is a good proxy for this whole debate, since the purpose of a ban is to reduce ownership rates to reduce homicide rates. Pro also drops that his evidence is all correlational, and so cannot prove causation. Extend these points. Pro agrees that culture is part of the cause; just because it worked in those places that did implement guns bans does not mean it will work here. That is a blatant correlation/causation confusion. In addition, the likelihood of right wing backlash in this country as opposed to say, in Japan, may cause a ban to backfire here.
A3. In addition to the correlative analysis, I can cite a meta-analysis of 47 other studies which found that weapons bans have an effect size of -.194, compared to alternative methods, many of which had effect sizes ranging from -.233 to -.352. The study described the former as "at best, marginal." In other words, weapons bans have little impact, if any, on reducing gun violence.  Also, Huemer, who Pro cites also, states: "the most rigorous and comprehensive study in the gun control literature...upon the adoption of shall-issue laws, murder rates declined immediately by about 8 percent...with declines continuing in subsequent years."  This study surveyed data over a 15 year period.
B. 20 years--not even a generation--is not enough time to get rid of the deep-seated gun culture in the U.S. The suggestion that it is is preposterous; that is like saying that you can get rid of racist culture in 20 years (that culture still is not even gone). You cannot, in 2 decades, erase what has permeated society through a century. Moreover, the notion that U.S. borders are under control is ridiculous. [2, 3] The "'DHS reports that the southwest border continues to be vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity, including the smuggling of humans and illegal narcotics.'...It is estimated that for every person caught...two more get by."  We can thus extend both of the reasons the UK should not be used as an analog for the U.S.
C. I searched his source 9 (CTRL+F for "sale," "traffic," "black," and "market") and got no results, so I can only conclude it isn't relevant there. His source 10 is from a 2 year data set, which is hardly conclusive (my France data goes back to 2003), and the report was released during the same administration that it was analyzing, leaving great potential for bias. And, even if the assault weapons ban did not fuel the black market, it is unlikely that banning all guns would have the same effect, since rifles and handguns are far more popular and in-demand. Pro drops my gang evidence. Extend it.
D. My opponents belief that militia-police violence won't spill out into communities is patently ridiculous. These militias operate in-and-around communities, and their activities actively disrupt those communities,  even setting up snipers on public interstates.  In some cases, assaults on police have already killed bystanders.  Pro also drops that right-wing terror caused more deaths than al-Qaeda linked terror in the U.S. If war between the militias and the government breaks out, it is more than likely innocent people will be caught in the crossfire. And, I also reject the idea that we can somehow not count the deaths of police and servicemen in our calculations--should we not seek to minimize all deaths? They are already America's top cop-killers.  Pro finally drops the point that gun bans will fuel the rise of right-wing terror.
E. Pro misrepresents the data. His article notes that .16-3.2% of defensive gun uses are reported to police; this is not the number of total, successful defensive uses; due to failure to report, the numbers are likely higher. In fact, "most all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals."  Also, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns...have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."  Regarding Pro's source 13, I cannot access it to assess its credibility. Prefer accessible evidence to inaccessible evidence. Pro drops that the Hobson's choice is a deterrent against crime. So, even if you don't buy that guns don't effectively stop crimes in progress, their utility should also be measured in terms of crimes they deter occurring in the first place.
F. All Pro's source does is explain that blacks are more likely to be arrested for crimes, which could be be due to racist police forces and overpolicing of black communities. His own source writes: "Many of the factors contributing to this inequality can be attributed to the system instead of to different behavior between blacks and whites." None of Pro's data is specific to gun crimes, either. Gun bans, because they prohibit people from owning guns, could lead to stop-and-frisk-like bias  in policing, where police are more likely to search black people for illicit guns than for white, leading to an intensification of oppression against black people. Plus, for every year of prison served, one's lifespan decreases 2 years. 
G. Pro continues to assume that people will magically accept a ban (and the regulations preceding it) just because it is gradual. Seeing your rights slip away slowly can be terrifying, and there is no good reason to believe--at least with the minimal analysis Pro has invested in this--that resistance will be small, especially given the importance of guns to many people in America. "It is safe to assume that most law-abiding gun owners would not comply with a firearms ban. That is verified by actual behavior...In Boston and Cleveland, the rate of compliance is estimated at 1%. Out of the 100,000 to 300,000 assault rifles estimated to be in private hands in New Jersey, 947 were registered, an additional 888 rendered inoperable, and four turned over to authorities. In California, nearly 90% of the approximately 300,000 assault weapon owners did not register their weapons." 
Pro's says his arguments show that accidents happen in that status quo. Currently, there are no safety features on guns; I am proposing that we mandate such safety features. All the data suggest that this would massively reduce accidental deaths. Pro dropped that "accidental deaths are only a small part of the total gun issue," and with these safety features added, they will be much smaller still.
1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://tinyurl.com...
4 - http://tinyurl.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
6 - http://tinyurl.com...
7 - http://tinyurl.com...
8 - http://tinyurl.com...
9 - Source 9, R2
10 - http://tinyurl.com...
11 - http://tinyurl.com...
12 - http://tinyurl.com...
13 - http://tinyurl.com...
Thank you. Thus, I negate.
Thanks for a great debate Bsh!
OBV 1: Con concedes the metaethical framework and the normative ethics framework. This means that moral realism ought to be considered as true and individualism ought to be viewed upon as the onset at which this debate should be looked at. I said that the individualist framework works in my favor. He has failed to contest with my point and therefore you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone since under the individualistic framework murder is wrong and guns cause murder.
OBV 2: I will not be arguing or presenting new arguments in the final round. My opponent should do the same and not present any new arguments or new points that cannot be addressed in this round.
Con misunderstands the point that I was making. Since under the individualistic framework (that my opponent has conceded) we are weighing lives as the most important thing this argument ought to be ignored based on the fact that this debate should be about lives lost not theft. If I am able to prove that a gun ban will save lives then you ought to presume pro. Theft is considered to be a less significant factor under the framework. If a gun ban prevents deaths and increases theft then you still ought to vote Pro due to the fact that the individualistic framework enforces the fact that the individuals lives should be considered as the most important thing. I’ve fulfilled my burden of answering the “should” element of this debate which is all I am required to do as the resolution clearly states.
A. I did agree to an extent.
B. We have a misunderstanding here. This debate isn’t about feasibility. It is about weighing the consequences up. The word “should” in the full resolution proves that. The purpose of my plan was to show that there would be mitigated consequences in terms of retaliation and protest. Government approval has nothing to do with desirability (synonym for should as stated in the definition). I can desire a gun ban over the period of 100 years without having to look at feasibility. It is a desire that I want to happen because I feel that if it is done then the positives will outweigh the negatives hence why I find it desirable. Desirability does not equate to feasibility.
C. This is conceded.
A1 - Con fails to understand that he has conceded to an individualistic framework and as a result he virtually concedes. It is important to note that I never said that regulation was bad, I just said a gun ban is more effective. He concedes that there are still gun deaths with restriction. There may be less but there are still deaths. Under all societies with complete gun bans the gun deaths are at 0. Since the individualistic framework states that deaths should be weighed in numbers so the more deaths, the worse, this means that you ought to presume pro. Con acknowledges that gun restrictions still cause some deaths and that gun bans result in lower deaths than places with gun restriction, ie. no deaths. This alone gives you enough reason to vote pro.
A2 - It didn’t need addressing. You are comparing homicides to gun ownership rates. What you aren’t doing is comparing it to places with gun bans. Since no comparisons of places with guns bans are made this evidently bears no weight upon the resolution.
A3 - Con refers to bans but what he means is general policies and programs that attempt to reduce firearm violence. This includes restriction. It is not specific to bans. Ergo, it has no impact or place in this debate. In regards to Huemer, I cited Huemer in regards to moral realism. Just because I cite one figure, that does not mean that I agree with all of their ideologies. Again, Huemer in that quote references to gun control, not a gun ban.
B. I’m not saying that we are going to completely eradicate all the belief that people have in guns. Just like even in the current system there are still people that believe that guns are bad and that there should be a gun ban. The gun ban will obviously cause some anger, no matter how long we stretch the ban over. The ban will come into action after 20 years and after a further generation (roughly 25 years) the support of guns will most likely be gone. I never said that it would be a quick and easy process but in the long term my plan will ultimately work. The borders are fine and even if you subjectively feel that they aren’t fine the US plans to increase border security over a long period of time .
C. Source 9 referenced to reduction in gun quantity in the UK overall. Since it showed that there are significantly less guns in the UK (virtually none) this means that the gun ban will ultimately eliminate or come close to eliminating a black market. His analysis of source 10 is massively subjective. He believes that it is bias, he believes that banning all guns won’t have the same effect, he believes that 2 year set data is insufficient - this is all subjective and no sources were used. He claims that I dropped gang violence but fails to acknowledge that they are interconnected. If I prove that there will be an extremely small black market then there is no reason to worry about gun related gang violence because the gun supply will be limited and consequently lower.
D. The use of snipers on property is because there was a mass protest in which people in the protest would have possibly acted violently and used guns . In a large protest in a country where guns are able to be privately obtained the use of soldiers and snipers is sometimes necessary to save more lives (individualism). My opponent also makes the claim that communities are being disrupted by this. This is faulty logic for a number of reasons. Sometimes “disruption” is necessary in order to save lives (which should be considered more important under the normative ethics based framework). He uses the word communities but only sources 1 instance of this happening. I didn’t drop right wing terrors. It is a long term operation and as I said, the police and militia will be equipped to handle this because they will have guns.
E. My data is the accurate data. Studies can estimate that there may be more instances but the occasions that it is reported are the more accurate ones since we actually have a definitive number. Estimations are not accurate. Con’s source 7 (the only source he uses in this sub point) is out of date. 3 years out of date to be precise . Also, CDC is not a credible source when it comes to gun research .
F. It COULD be because of a flaw in the system but this is debateable. There are many factors involved as the source addressed. The statistics may be slightly higher due to inequality but the reality is that the source specifically mentioned that the system was only one of many factors that contribute towards the statistics. It is specific to crime which includes gun crime. Yes it does not directly address gun crime but it shows that black people are more likely to commit crime in general which means that it includes gun crime. Gun crime comes under the heading of crime. This is why it isn’t unexpected that black people do commit more gun crimes in the US than white people as I originally claimed . The racial profiling in this instance is justified and is necessary in order to fulfill the framework.
G. In the plan he makes the assumption that the public will be informed. The public will only be informed on the current courses of action (ie. gun restrictions), not the grand scheme (gun bans). Polls conclusively prove that the majority of Americans support gun control. Therefore, the gun control will not act or been viewed as a negative act by the majority of people. The process of taking away guns will be a long operation as I have repeatedly said. I would not expect 100% compliance but those found with guns will be violating the law and will be prosecuted if found. In the long term this will almost certainly reduce guns significantly. Even if most keep their guns originally there will be massive restrictions on what they can and can’t do. If they use their gun for self defense then they will still be prosecuted for having a gun on them. If they are found with the gun then they will be prosecuted, if they accidentally shoot a family member of a friend then they will still be prosecuted and largely fined. The consequences will create restriction on what they can and can’t do and in the long term it will be extremely difficult to obtain ammunition and it is unlikely that they will be able to get it through a black market for reasons stated previously. Even if there was a black market it is extremely unlikely that everybody will be able to get guns and ammunition at a sustainable rate that will work in the long term. He must prove this in order for this argument to be accepted as valid.
Con cannot make a counter plan now. This is committing the fallacy that he brought up earlier. He is shifting the goalposts. I set out a clear plan and stuck to it throughout the debate so I set clear goalposts. He is shifting them and adding modifications as he goes along. This is a fallacy that he commits and it is one that he displayed distaste towards. Since Con provided no opening arguments this meant that I was proposing a change in the status quo and he had to keep to it. If he wanted to make modifications then he would have something to prove and as such this means that he would have part of the burden of proof however by not making arguments or anything to prove this, it means that I am proposing change in the status quo, Con is defending it. This is a large mistake on his behalf and should be heavily considered.
Thanks Bsh for the debate and thanks FortisAnimi for advising, I know that timing has been a problem. The effort is appreciated. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro!
 http://bit.ly... http://bit.ly...
Thanks to Famous and Proph for the debate, and to DK for hosting!
In R3, Pro flat out misunderstood my confiscation argument. Then, he talked about how, because things would be gradual, the confiscation wouldn't be problematic. Now, Pro is saying that because of his framework, confiscation doesn't matter. This a new argument against a point that he was substantively unresponsive to earlier.
But, even if you buy that Pro can make his attack, he is still wrong. The purpose of a presumption argument is to give the judge a way to resolve the debate if other impacts are too close or muddled to call. Notice, in R2, I wrote: "Therefore, you should presume Con, because if all else is equal, we should still reject theft." In other words, you should vote Con if neither side can show that they save more lives, because theft is still an a priori wrong.
In his OB1, Pro says that "you ought to vote Pro...since under the individualistic framework murder is wrong and guns cause murder." This is not quite right; Pro must first show that gun bans = less murder.
Pro's reply to point B is entirely new. My attacks on his plan never changed, but Pro never mentioned feasibility once before. All of his responses here should be ignored, and my remarks should be extended. But, even if you don't buy that, Pro's feasibility argument only refutes my 3rd point, not points 1 and 2, which are that his plan will "(1) give the right-wing years to recruit and fear-monger, (2) be met with increasingly frustrated and violent resistance." These avoid his objections as they aren't about the ability to implement, but rather the likely effects of implementation.
A1. Pro says that all countries with gun bans have 0 gun deaths. In round two, Pro says, "In the United Kingdom they have a complete gun ban for citizens." If you take a look at his chart, you will notice that they UK does have gun deaths. So, this is just totally false. Moreover, Pro fails to grasp that gun deaths are always going to occur, given that gun will always exist in the black market. But, ultimately, Pro drops the main thrust of my A1 argument--Pro attempts to dismiss all my counterexamples because they have regulations, and Pro doesn't succeed in doing so.
A2. Pro says that this data is irrelevant because it doesn't specifically pertain to gun bans. (1) This is a new argument against a point Pro admits he dropped, so you should ignore Pro's attack and extend my remarks. Secondly, even if you don't buy that, Pro fails to rebut my comment that: "this is a good proxy for this whole debate, since the purpose of a ban is to reduce ownership rates to reduce homicide rates." Pro calls it irrelevant, while simultaneously ignoring the analysis I gave to explain why it is relevant. And, again, Pro dropped last round that all of his data is correlational--it cannot show causality. Pro also agreed last round that culture could have explanatory value in understanding why places with bans may also have low homicide rates.
A3. Pro says that I refer to general policies, not specifically. That is just false. In my Source 1 from last round, look at table 2 on page 233, and you will see that the data there is specifically about bans; the whole paper is about reducing gun violence and it examines various ways to do that. Pro blatantly misrepresents my evidence. Prefer my study because it relies on 47 other studies, which expand its sample size, and because it is a study as opposed to Pro's mere observation. As for Huemer, Pro again misunderstands the evidence. "Shall-issue" laws are laws that make it easier, not harder, to get guns; so, obviously, bans (which make getting guns harder) are counterproductive. The study Huemer references is one that surveyed 3,000+ counties over 15 years.
B. Pro simply does not understand the depth of the U.S. gun culture--to believe that after 20 years "the support of guns will most likely be gone" is absurd, and flies in the face of all of the evidence, namely, the growing right-wing backlash, the refusal of people to cooperate with gun control or ban efforts in other parts of the country, the power of the NRA, and the many voters who vote gun-toting nutcases into office. As for the issue on borders, Pro's reply is basically, "it is my opinion that the borders are secure," which is an incredible statement, after I cited evidence from Homeland Security that strongly indicates it isn't, and after I pointed out that for every 1 person crossing, 2 people don't get caught. Re: Pro's argument about the US increasing border security in the future: (1) we cannot even be sure this is actually going to happen and (2) we have no idea how effective it will be. People have been trying to secure the border for years [http://tinyurl.com...]. Pro saying (without bothering to develop the point) that the US is planning on fixing it, is not an inspiring comeback. Ultimately, this point (B) was about showing that the UK was not a good point of comparison for the US, since, as it's surrounded by water, it is easier for the UK to control its borders. And, the UK lacks our gun culture.
C. Pro says his Source 9 shows that the UK's ban eliminated the black market, but, as I just noted, the UK is surrounded by water which helps with border control, while the US has extremely porous borders that would allow guns to flood in from Mexico in the event of a US gun ban. France is a better comparison because it has land borders, like the US. Pro then says that you should not accept my 3 arguments against his study because I did not use sources. Why are sources always necessary--is good, old fashioned logic so out of date? It is logical that 2 years (esp. compared to 13 years with my France data) is not a sufficient time span to draw definitive conclusions. It is logical that Clinton's administration would release a report favorable to Clinton's policies. It is logical that, because handguns and rifles are more popular than assault weapons, that banning the former would create greater demand on the black market than banning the latter. Therefore, if you buy that banning all privately held guns would support a black market, you must also buy that banning guns would fuel gangs, since Pro dropped that earlier.
D. Pro misunderstands this evidence as well. It was not the police who had snipers; it was the right-wing militants who had snipers. Pro then critiques me for only citing 1 example (I cited 2), but I only needed an example to illustrate a broader point: if the right-wing militias get into pitched battle with law enforcement over their guns rights, or if some citizens decide to take out their anger on our cops, not only will the cops and assailants die, but innocent people will too. This is simple logic: shooting in communities endangers the communities, not just the shooters.
E. Pro's data is not accurate, as I said last round: "His article notes that .16-3.2% of defensive gun uses are reported to police; this is not the number of total, successful defensive uses; due to failure to report, the numbers are likely higher." To quote directly from Pro's source: "only 3.2 percent or 0.16 percent respectively of defensive gun uses are reported to the police." Then, Pro tries to indict my CDC evidence by citing a Politico article. What the politico article says is that the CDC was biased in the 1990's in favor of gun bans. Since Pro correctly notes that my source was from 3 years ago (not the 1990's), it was not selected from the period of bias. Moreover, if the CDC's bias is in favor of a ban, then when they say that guns are useful we should really take notice; the Politico article strengthens my data's credibility. Finally, 3 years is not really out of date, and I'd take 3 years old vs. evidence that isn't even talking about what Pro says it is talking about.
F. Pro basically goes from: "gun bans help black people" to "gun bans probably don't hurt black people." Regardless, this portion doesn't really weigh under the saving lives metric we're using for the round.
G. Pro shifts the goalposts, adding new stuff to his plan, namely that the public won't be informed of the ultimate goal: banning. Vote Pro down on the theory--this is categorically unfair. Moreover, it is 100% a new argument, so even if you don't buy that it shifts the goalposts, you should disregard his argument entirely anyway. Extend that (a) people won't comply, and (b) there will likely be escalating and stiff resistance.
For the umpteenth time in this debate, Pro misunderstands things. In R2, I pointed out that there were currently no safety features require for guns and that such features would effectively curb accidental deaths. I said "safety features solve." The clear purpose of this was to run a counterplan to solve for the accidental death.
1. Murder Rates
My 2 studies (Huemer and the meta-analysis) are more reliable than Pro's small dataset, correlational observations. My studies show that (a) gun bans are ineffective and (b) that reducing gun restrictions lowers violence. I pointed out that culture could be why Japan, Iceland, the UK, etc. have low gun homicide rates, rather than as a result of a ban--thus undercuts Pro's data further. Moreover, I solve for
Guns are highly effective defensive tools that protect victims from injury, saving their lives.
3. Gang Violence
Due to our porous borders and gun culture, it is likely that the US will have a thriving black market, leading to more gang violence.
4. Right-Wing Violence
Gun regulations and bans will incite right-wing violence that will spill over into communities, causing the deaths of assailants, law enforcement officials, and civilians.
5. Debate Theory
Pro shifts the goalposts after agreeing note to--this is unfair and a breach of debate etiquette.
Because I prevent more loss of life than my opponent, Please VOTE CON! Thank you!