Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.
Debate Rounds (5)
The second part of round 1 will be the first CX time. Max 10 questions, and if you don't agree with that, add in what you feel should be the proper amount of questions at the end of the 1AC.
The first part of round 2 will be the answers to those CX questions.
The second part of round 2 will be the 1NC.
The first part of round 3 will be the CX questions. Again, 10 questions max.
The second part of round 3 will be the answers to those CX questions.
The first part of round 4 will be the 1AR.
The second part of round 4 will be the 2NR.
The first part of round 5 will be the 2AR.
My opponent can say anything in the second part of round 5, but don't vote on it, because it's not part of the debate.
When placing cards, write out the tag and cite as usual, but when placing the actual cards, just type in what you would say if you were in a real LD debate. For my cites, I'm just going to provide the Author name, year, and link or book.
If there's any questions, comment.
With that, I'll get right into the case.
I value morality as per the evaluative term "ought" in the resolution, which is defined as "used to express duty or moral obligation". By Merriam-Webster.
The standard is minimizing oppression
1. Oppression is bad for equality
a. Arbitrariness " identity is morally arbitrary, so allowing discrimination undermines the foundation of a moral theory.
b. Inclusion is an epistemological prerequisite " oppression is the biggest impact since we can"t form moral theories until all those affected are included by it.
c. Any theory that condones an unequal societal order should be rejected since it would not be accepted by those at the bottom " this makes it useless as a political philosophy, which must be justifiable to the citizens who the government rules over
2. Structural violence is based in moral exclusion which is flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived difference.
Winter and Leighton 01. " Structural violence." Peace, conflict and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (2001): 99-101.
To recognize structural violence questions the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. We must be vigilant in listening to oppressed, invisible outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered. Structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its effects. The same structures which feed violence can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it.
3. Ethical theories that can"t account for the reality we live in fail as normative guides to action.
Farrely 07. Colin Farrelly, 2007, Professor of Political Studies, Queen's University, "Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation", Political Studies, 2007. RFK
Normative theorizing must be integrated with empirical realities of society. Non-ideal considerations must be taken seriously when deriving principles of justice. If to implement the theory would not result in justness, then it fails. Theorists assume a philosopher can easily determine the 'best conditions'. Philosophers should adopt a critically reflective attitude towards concerning what is realistically possible. Egalitarian cannot address tradeoffs that inevitably arise.
As the affirmative, I will defend buyback programs, meaning the government will buy back all handguns from citizens.
Contention 1: Femicide
A] Handguns are used to threaten, terrorize, and kill feminized bodies in the household.
Overton 15. http://www.canongate.tv...
A gun in the home puts women at risk. A cross-national study found high correlation between gun accessibility and femicide homicide. Women said the gun used to threaten them, prevented them from reacting and they felt unable to end the relationship for fear. Two thirds of households, the partner used the gun against the women.
B] The mere presence of a gun elicits aggressive violent behavior. Banning handguns solves the "weapons effect" " empirics prove.
Umberger 13 https://www.academia.edu...
Guns themselves have been cues of aggression. Frustration can lead to aggressive behavior in the presence of guns. The mere presence can influence aggressive behavior. The removal of guns would reduce aggressive behavior. Within a year of the ban there was a significant drop in homicide and robbery.
C] Banning handguns is uniquely key to prevent femicides " best data shows handguns are the murders" weapon of choice.
VPC 11. "When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2009 Homicide Data."
Handguns were the most common weapon used to murder females. The number of females killed was five times higher than the total number murdered using all weapons combined. Handguns were the weapon of choice. 69 percent killed with handguns.
D] Handguns are used in self-defense in less than 1% of cases " the risk that it can cause harm is sufficient to affirm.
Donohue 15. http://www.cnn.com...
The victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of incidents. The invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim's gun than have the victim use self-defense. That fails to deliver 95% of the time but has the potential, particularly handguns, to harm someone.
E] Try or die for the aff " only a risk we can solve, this means you default gun control solves crime.
NY Times 15. http://www.nytimes.com...
It is moral outrage that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. Determined killers obtain weapons illegally in England and Norway, yes, but at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Certain weapons must be outlawed for ownership.
Contention 2: Homicide
A] Handguns are the firearm of choice for violent crime " best evidence shows reducing handgun possession reduces homicide rates and doesn"t cause a switch to other weapons.
Dixon 11. "Handguns, Philosophers, and the Right to Self-Defense."
The US far outstrips countries in handgun ownership and homicide rates. Twenty times greater handguns are the firearm of choice of criminals, being used in 72% of homicides. Substantially reducing handguns will reduce homicide. Because of their cheapness, concealability, ease of use, and lethality, handguns are ideally suited to crimes and criminals are highly unlikely to commit as many violent crimes by switching to alternative weapons. Sophisticated statistical analyses of comprehensive comparative data provide strong support. Three separate studies found that the prevalence of firearms strongly correlated with the homicide rate with a probability of less than 0.01 that this would happen by chance. In its review of the literature the National Academy of Science concludes that there is a substantial association between gun ownership and homicide.
B] Banning handguns undermines illegal markets and reduces gun availability " four warrants. Limiting legal gun accessibility ultimately undermines illegal markets and reduces crime, we solve the root cause as we take away the source of guns.
LaFollette 2K http://www.hughlafollette.com...)
The widespread availability of guns increases crime. Where do criminals get their guns?  They steal them or buy them from those who purchased them legally. Even guns obtained from other criminals are traceable to people who purchased them legally. Empirical evidence supports this.  At least half a million guns are stolen each year and these swell the numbers of guns available illegally.  The legal market also affects price. As we restrict guns in the primary market, the supply of guns in secondary markets decreases and their cost increases. Increase in cost diminish ability to obtain guns, thereby decrease the number of homicides.  Conversely legally available guns increases the number of guns. This makes it easier for criminals to obtain guns.
C] Buyback programs are extremely effective " empirics prove.
Oremus 15 http://www.slate.com...)
Homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent with no increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides was 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies dropped significantly. Home invasions did not increase. Contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia [have] been discredited. Other reports have cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia"s laws didn"t work. Peer-reviewed papers note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback.
D] Buyback programs work and doesn"t cause a switch to different weapons.
Ramzy et al 15 http://www.nytimes.com...)
The places where the most guns were removed from public circulation experienced the largest drops in gun deaths. Firearm suicides fell. Firearm homicides also fell. Overall homicide and suicide rates fell meaning Australians did not respond by killing one another or themselves using other weapons. At least 200 lives are saved annually because of Australia"s gun buyback program.
2) How does negating actually systematically oppress a group of people?
3) If one's ability to protect themselves is downgraded by affirming wouldn't that be oppressive to people who can't protect themselves as well?
4) If affirming creates injustice and unequal societal order can you still uphold any of your framework?
5) In contention 1, you talk about femicide. How are they oppressed when a handgun is the most practical gun for their own self defense due to its conceal-ability and portability? ( would you really want to bring a rifle on your midnight walk? )
6) In your points about violent feelings and femicide, why is a hand gun any different than other guns. (your own analysis)
7) If a handguns ban is indeed undemocratic for any reason wouldn't it be oppressive to affirm?
8) You argue that a ban reduces crime and black market. Wouldn't it actually be giving the guns directly to criminals and our of the hands of the good since criminals are okay with committing crime and the good would comply?
9) Due to conflicting statistics about homicide should this be considered a mute point in this debate?
10) Are you aware that your arguments about Australia enacted a complete firearm ban, not a hand gun ban?
2. Negating allows handguns to exist, which means males can continue using the handguns to dominate females.
3. Look to Contention 1, Subpoint D, which says handguns are rarely used in self-defense. Also look to Contention 2, Subpoint A, which says handguns are the primary weapon used by criminals.
4. If you can prove that the affirmative creates injustice and unequal societal order well enough, then you would win. However, I would try to uphold my framework.
5. Again, look to Subpoint D, which says handguns are rarely used in self-defense. You can make the self-defense argument, but I'll just extend that subpoint.
6. I'm not sure I can give "my own analysis" on this. Based on several pieces of evidence, handguns are simply used more than other firearms, which means males, even those who aren't criminals, can use these handguns to dominate females. I'm not sure if that's "my own analysis" though. Sorry.
7. I don't see how democracy and oppression are related.
8. Subpoint B in Contention 2 gives several warrants for why the buyback would reduce crime and the black market.
9. No. We would need to prove why either your evidence or my evidence should be statistically more significant.
10. That is a valid point. However, having a buyback for just handguns would have a least a chance of solvency. That's also Subpoint E in Contention 1, which says try-or-die for the aff.
I would like to add the following definitions to today debate:
Hand gun: A gun designed for use by one hand, especially a pistol or revolver. (Oxford dictionary)
Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone"s actions (Oxford business dictionary)
Private ownership: The ownership of tangible and intangible goods by an individual who has exclusive rights over it. The transfer of a private property can take place only by the owner"s consent or through a sale or through its presentation as a gift. (Black's Law Dictionary)
My core value for today"s debate is government legitimacy: There are several ways to determine what a government must do to be legitimate. Government legitimacy is defined descriptively by Max Weber as a system of authority that the people recognize and obey. In his own words "the basis of every system of authority and of every willingness to obey, is a belief, a belief by virtue of which person exercising authority are lent prestige." Basically it requires that the people recognize the authority. The other common theory is that legitimacy is linked to moral justification. A combination of these definitions makes the most sense for this debate because both are necessary for a government to work. A government must have obedience and should absolutely be for the good of the people.
In order to support both forms of government legitimacy America must adhere to democracy. Democracy as I will use in this debate refers to a specifically American form and idea of democracy since this is about policy in the United States. Democracy as I use it, includes constitutionalism, popular sovereignty, Democratic process, and the support of as many democratic principles as possible. For one, the reason there is unity between the people and the government is the democratic process. It ensures that the people know how their government functions which allows them to obey and recognize the government as legitimate. Also, democracy was designed in America as a process that ensures the government makes decisions with moral justification which also makes the government legitimate. For example in the confines of this debate, adhering to constitutionalism while understanding its intent helps the government make a decision with moral justification. If America adheres strictly to its original founding, purpose, and process it will maintain legitimacy far into the future. The importance being in this debate that if American policy is allowed to move against democratic process in some cases, then its power becomes unchecked and it may become ill intended.
Contention 1: A hand guns ban is undemocratic, thereby perpetuating a deterioration of America"s legitimacy in the view of the people and moving against our process of making moral decisions.
Sub-point A: A hand gun banishment counteracts the value in the constitution and 2nd amendment.
The second amendment reads "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." Perhaps a straightforward and clear intentioned line to the founding fathers is now unclear in the 21st century. It is weak to simply say that because it is in the constitution it is inherently our obligation. It can only hold relevance today if we can understand the intent of the line and impacts today. The intent is in the words itself "being necessary to the security of a Free State"" It makes sense why this was such a critical issue for the founding fathers who experienced militaries being used for oppression. Yet this is a timeless American ideal. Firearms are a check on leadership to make sure the power actually does stay in the hands of the people. It is in that sense a tool of maintaining democracy. On top of that, this amendment empowers the individual to protect their own right to life, liberty, health, and property. Finally, in 2008 during the Heller .v. Columbia case the Supreme Court made some major decisions about the 2nd amendment. Most significantly that the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to arms and that handguns are recognized as legitimate arms. Because the analysis of the amendment still has relevance it must be upheld or else democracy is undermined. Banning handguns would undoubtedly be infringing on the people"s right to bear arms.
Sub-point B: Allowing handguns better allows people to protect their own lives, thereby protecting rights.
Adding to one of the impacts the second amendment still has today, handguns allow the people the ability to protect themselves. Hand guns are a practical weapon for home defense because they can be concealed and are easily accessible and easy to use. It is politically accepted that a government ought to protect every citizen"s life, liberty, health, and property first and foremost as part of John Locke"s social contract. In regards to pragmatic option of banning handguns in which the affirmative side argues that more lives are saved based purely off the numbers, shouldn"t an individual have the option to protect themselves? If hand guns were banned every time someone gets shot in their home we couldn"t help but wonder if that law abiding citizen could have saved themselves. Also, hand guns do have attributes to self-protection that other guns don"t provide. Their concealability makes them practical for self-protection because one can practically carry one out of the house. In this case a young woman out after dark may have a strong self-defense method with her. Allowing hand guns gives everyone an equal chance to protect themselves and makes sure no group is favored over another.
Contention 2: The popular vote is to keep handguns legal.
Democracy is defined by government by the people. As a democratic country we ought to consider what the people actually want. A poll in 2011 by Gallop found that 73% of Americans are against a hand gun ban. As a democracy we ought to consider that the people believe that the ban would not be favorable whether they think it is unconstitutional, or think it help their safety.
Now to address my opponents case:
1st of all my opponent asks not to judge off my last speech. I will try not to bring up any new points but is really in my opponents last speech that new points MUST not be because I will have no opportunity to address it. Still I understand his intent and will attempt to bring up all points in this speech if he does the same. (:
Now, lets jump right into my opponents case starting with his Core value and value criterion of Morality and minimizing oppression. Obviously morality is a good thing to uphold. I would just like to point out that my core value is a moral CV and I have simply taken the broad idea of morality and shown how we can apply it to this debate. For this reason you won't be able to value morality above government legitimacy because they are one in the same. That being said, my opponent upholds a consequentialist view of morality meaning the most good for the most amount of people or that we are looking to maximizing moral ends. I would just like to point out that if you value this then you would be allowing my opponent to ignore other people or do immoral things to get to the moral end.
In this debate my opponent would do immoral things to reach an end. Because my opponent believes affirming allows for less death he would move against democratic intent, the people's will, and leave some defenseless. Look to my point I layer out that a hand guns is much more practical than a rifle for women's self defense. (more on that later)
Continuing with this idea is the Value criterion of minimizing oppression. This simply isn't going to work with my opponents views of morality. My opponents main argument here is that we are allowing guns for men to terrorize women with. However, this idea is actually being thought about backwards. In reality without handguns we are taking away a favored weapon of self defense. Handguns are practical because they are light and practical to carry. If a women is truly worried about her self defense she would prefer to carry around a handgun then a rifle or any other gun. Even if you don't buy me there, affirming would actually be oppressive because the people don't want a hand guns ban and it's a very important ideal of America. If you affirm you are allowing the government to go beyond its jurisdiction. If the government can break democratic process in this circumstance it could in any.
Now for the contentions which I am going to subgroup due to low number of characters remaining.
C1: Cross apply all I said about value criterion. If you affirm you are actually stealing the right to life because you are taking it out of their own hands and into the hand of a government that can not provide solvency. People deserve a right to protect themselves then be protected.
c2: My opponent brings up that hand guns are unique to this circumstance which if it is even true it would still be unjust to stop them because it is out of the democracies jurisdiction. Don't let my opponent argue that that could change because a debate that doesn't take place in reality is futile. On top of that, when considering life and homicide my opponent tries to protect quantity of lives. I am trying to protect quality of life by giving one their own life and stopping the government from being so all powerful.
Finally, some of my opponents stats are countered. From 1993-2013 firearm homicides have dropped by half and peoples ownership has increased by 50%. A decrease in guns doesn't = less deaths necessarily.
Also, when other liberal gun politics have been in acted like assault rifle ban, there has been no correlation.
Finally, my opponents case about the black-market doesn't make sense. All homicides are committed by criminals, and who accesses the black market? criminals do
2. What's the impact of your second contention?
3. What's the methodology of the poll?
4. Why is consequentialism util bad?
5. If I prove democracy is oppressive, would I win the debate?
2) If the people don't want a handguns ban/feel their government is taking too much power then a handguns ban would be undemocratic which deteriorates our democracy and therefore our legitimacy also.
3) "Gallup uses telephone surveys in countries where telephone coverage represents at least 80% of the population or is the customary survey methodology. In countries where telephone interviewing is employed, Gallup uses a random-digit-dial (RDD) method or a nationally representative list of phone numbers. Telephone methodology is typical in the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. Gallup purchases telephone samples from various sample providers located in each region, including Sample Answers and Sample Solutions."
4) Consequentialism Util ignores minorities. Utilitarian ethics say that we ought to maximize the most welfare, but this ignores the few who aren't part of the helped majority. Also, ends may not justify means. Imagine this situation, You are in a prison camp but are allowed to live if you pick one of your children to live with you as well and kill the other. Or you can all die. The ends of saving lives doesn't justify killing the one child. Apply this to our debate.
5) The argument isn't over democracy in and of itself. This point is saying that if our government doesn't adhere to democracy which is how we maintain government legitimacy (see negative case) then our government becomes far more oppressive. Also, democracy is really the best "real" form of government in the world. Lets not go to far into that debate though. (:
First, value morality over government legitimacy. Morality also takes into account people's lives while government legitimacy just focuses on the government. My opponent supports this value with his first contention, which says a handgun ban is undemocratic. His first subpoint is Constitution, and his second one is self-defense.
I'll address his first subpoint. I have a few responses for his constitution argument.
1. Begs for some external standard"we derive moral rules from the constitution but that begs the question of where and how we formulate those rules.
2. Our framework justifies overriding the Constitution because the right to not be oppressed is a trump and should be preferred " that"s Winter and Leighton
3. Constitution flows aff " a majority of legal scholars are on our side
Kates 83 "HANDGUN PROHIBITION AND THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT"
Those who claim the second amendment guarantees individual right to arms is endorsed by only a minority of legal scholars. The exclusively state's right position is dominant among lawyers and law professors and the Bar Association.
4. There is an elastic clause within the constitution meaning that its bearings can always be changed. Moreover, this means that it fails as a consistent guide to action.
5. Handgun bans have never been overturned by the Second Amendment " empirics prove
VPC 2000 http://www.vpc.org...
An objection is that the Second Amendment forbids it. This is pure myth. Bans on handgun possession have remained on the books for decades"despite vigorous court challenges.
6. Empirically denied"wartime presidents don"t adhere to the constitution meaning it"s not an objective normative theory.
7. Can"t weigh between conflicting constitutional claims because they"re empirical facts meaning it fails to guide action. Also it's impossible to weigh back violations of the constitution.
8. It"s a bad moral system because it doesn"t tell us what to do when not within the sphere of the constitution. For example, the constitution doesn"t mention gay marriage and a plethora of other things and as such we have to guide to action when discussing those policies.
Let's go to the second subpoint, self-defense.
1. Extend Donohue 15. Handguns are rarely used for self-defense " only in less than 1% of all cases " which means case outweighs on probability and magnitude of lives saved. Prefer the evidence because it uses 7 academic journals of social psychology to support its conclusion.
2. You"re 22 times more likely to die than because you own a handgun than you are to use it in self defense
NY Times 15 http://www.nytimes.com...
Gun safety studies have found that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a family homicide, suicide or accident than to be used in self-"defense.
Prefer the evidence because it cites empirical examples from Alaska and Hawaii and utilizes multiple gun safety studies thereby constructing a better methodology.
3. Self-defense is rare compared to overall handgun violence " their evidence inflates the numbers using a terrible methodology
VPC 2000 http://www.vpc.org...
Through dubious methodologies, pro-gun advocates have inflated numbers showing handguns to be effective. Bringing handguns into the home has the opposite effect, placing residents at a higher risk. A person living in a home with a gun is three times more likely to die by homicide and five times more likely to die by suicide. Self-defense handgun uses are rare.
4. The argument is also self-defeating.
DeGrazia 14 https://kiej.georgetown.edu...
Evidence strongly supports that owning guns for the purpose of self-defense tends to be self-defeating. Household members face a greater chance of suffering a violent death if the house contains guns. Gun ownership tends to be self-defeating from a safety standpoint.
This takes care of contention 1. Let's go to contention 2, which is pretty much a poll. However, a buyback program gives an incentive for people to give up their guns. The poll is also only significant for a gun ban, not a buyback.
Let's go to my case.
My opponent's attack against my standard, minimizing oppression, says that women can use those guns in self-defense. However, I've given several studies that handguns are rarely used in self-defense, and it's self-defeating, so that argument doesn't stand. This also means my contention 1 still stands.
Let's go to my second contention. I've proven that a buyback program won't be democratic. Also, quality of lives doesn't exist without quantity of lives. You can't improve life if there is no life to begin with. Also, my opponent says my illicit market argument doesn't make sense. However, I'll spell out the warrants.
1. Criminals get guns from people who purchased them legally, so a buyback solves the root cause.
2. Half a million guns are stolen, and these swell the number of guns in the illicit market.
3. If we restrict guns in the illicit market, their cost increases, which diminish ability to obtain guns.
4. Less available guns decreases the number of guns.
Finally, I think my opponent is confused about "last speech" thing. The reason my opponent can't say anything in the second part of the fifth round is because that speech doesn't exist in LD debate. There is no "3NR". Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
In response to my core value my opponent says that morality includes lives and is more paramount. My opponent was really trying to uphold oppression but let explore life. Even if you agree Morality is better because it includes life you will still vote Negative. My opponents debate hinges on this idea that handguns kill more people than protected. For one, we have conflicting statistics whether the whole premise of his debate is true or not. Also, voting AFF allows for the government to go against democracy and the people which makes our whole system tenuous. If they can act like that in this decision who's to say they won't ignore democracy in other circumstances? This puts lives and security in jeopardy. Even if you aren't buying all that I said previously, a negative vote allows everyone a chance to life. My opponent would like to say its more deadly to own a handgun then it helps but what about the people this isn't true for. Even if for most people handguns are bad (which I prove otherwise later) we ignore the people they do save.
Then, my opponent upholds stopping oppression while he is ignoring the people that handguns do good for. (more later)
My opponent has several attacks on my contention one so I will address the attacks that seem to be the most paramount, but don't hold me accountable for answering all when there were so many attacks.
1) My opponent says stopping oppression trumps the constitution. If you believe this is true then you have no choice but to vote for the CON because defying the constitution corrupts our own government and tells people they really have no power in reality.
2) My opponent says that there's debate over the intent of the constitution and that the constitution may not be moral. However, in 2008 Heller V Columbia the supreme court agreed that handguns are indeed protected. Also, I talk all about the relevancy this still has today in contention 2.
3) My opponent says that the constitution doesn't apply to everything. This doesn't really matter because it does apply to this. He brings up gay marriage but that wasn't really a concept back then. Yes ideas change but again, I show why the amendment still holds relevance.
Basically, it still remains that the is being defied and that does matter. I access all of my Framework with this idea.
In response to my second contention my opponent says that hand guns are rarely used for self defense. These statistics where from Violence Policy Center and are all from the 1990's. If my opponent wants to use these statistics they will need more up to date figures. Also, if we look behind the ideas here my opponent is saying that because handguns kill a lot of people they should not be allowed. However, handguns, no matter how large or small that number is in actuality, do protect several people. Let's assume my opponents worst case scenario where handguns don't protect many people but kill a lot. By voting Negative you are allowing everyone a chance to protect their own life. Otherwise, on the AFF we are assuming that the government would be protecting them. Even if handguns do kill more people you will still want people to have the right to their own life. I am protecting ones RIGHT to protect there own life, not supremely making generalizations to make a moral end. My opponent believes he is helping the most but leaves everyone else helpless. When you vote CON you are voting for equality in the protection of life.
In response to the buyback program, this wouldn't ever get everyone pumped for the idea and even if it is more impressive it is not grounded in reality in the moment. If you want to debate policy then more information should show how plausible this is. This isn't a huge winning/loosing point in this debate so lets look to framework and morals as this is a moral debate.
Now lets look at my own case once more.
A large area of clash for their debate has been the Value Criterion of minimizing oppression. They point out how handguns kill more than they are worth. This completely ignores the people who this is not true for. Give everyone a realistic chance to protect themselves. I have clearly laid out, and it has not been contested, that a handguns portatbility makes it a great self defense weapon. Again, realize my opponent's stats are outdated in saying that handguns are rarely used for self defense. For every instance that a handguns is used for selfdefense it become the moral choice and saved a life. Its not like we are telling everyone they need a handgun so my opponents argument about a handgun being detrimental to some doesn't mean we should ignore those it saves!
My opponent brings up the black-market. His 4 warrants for this need to be contested.
1) My opponent 1st argues that this point makes sense since criminals buy from non-criminals so its stops the black-market at the source. But in this case, the guns are already out of the bag and in circulation of criminals. Criminals can now sell criminals guns.
2) My opponent says that stolen guns make it worse. Again, there are already countless guns in circulation. Almost 1 per american.
3) My opponent argues that a ban would at least make the black-market cost increase: But in this case, even if less accessible, they are still a threat.
4) Finally, my opponent thinks that since there would be less overall there would be less death. The problem being that we would actually just take every handgun from good people and none from the criminals.
This point completely backfires on my opponents arguments about homicide and claims about protecting life. Realistically, there is not way to retain every handgun and the ones still in circulation will be heavily in the criminals who wouldn't respect this law like they don't respect several.
In response to my point about life quality versus quantity my opponent says that we can't improve life without life to begin with. This isn't what we are talking about. A handgun ban doesn't save everyone and not banning handguns definitely doesn't kill anyone. At this point how many are being killed doesn't really flow one way or another so we look to process. If I led a country I could but everyone in a titanium box making sure no one every got killed besides natural causes. This isn't really protecting life. Since you can safely vote either way without killing everyone think about rights. I have shown that I support the right to life. Also, everyone's lives will be better off if they have a government that they can trust and goes through due process. If they intact a handguns banishment they are out of their jurisdiction!
I will now go over a few key points in this debate and why they all flow Negative.
1) The first thing we need to evaluate are moral frameworks. More opponent upholds morality and minimizing oppression and I uphold Government legitimacy and Adherence to democracy. First, my opponent cannot access his own framework. My opponent ignores the people who handguns help and gives them no alternative. This is oppressive. My opponent would argue that handguns give men a way to terrorize women, but banning handguns gives the women no way to protect themselves while men will still have other means. Don't let my opponent site Australia here in his last speech, they banned all guns not handguns. Actually, whether you agree with my framework of my opponents you will want to vote CON in todays debate. If you agree with morality and oppression, then I fully fulfill it all by making sure no one is oppressed by a government out of jurisdiction, illegitimate government, and people without a realistic way to protect themselves. Also, I uphold my original framework. My opponent's only attack on democracy has been that the constitution is questionable in how it acts today. Look to my points about that. Other than that, is still stands that if we don't adhere to democracy, which is the only way a democracy stays a legitimate government, then our government becomes more oppressive. Without adhering to democracy the people become skeptical of the government and the government become less moral. When looking to the moral debate I am winning either way.
2) Another large area of clash has been the ideas of homicide. My opponent has argued that handguns kill so many that they ought to be banned. I have shown that handguns save many and as they increase the number of homicides have decreased. My statistic is recent and from america. My opponents is old and from other countries, but perhaps more "imperial". No matter how you draw the line there is no way of knowing which way it goes entirely. For that reason we are going to be looking at process. When you vote con you are allowing for democratic process and intent, as well as the will of the people. This is why handguns OUGHT not be banned. There is no solvency for life on either side, therefore when you vote todays look to process and moral framework.
For these reasons I can only see a CON vote for today
Finally, I would just like to remind voters not to vote on any NEW points in my opponents final speech since I will have no official opportunity to address them. In LD debate which we are styling this debate off of, new points in the last speech are considered abusive.
Otherwise, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It has been very enjoyable and I would be happy to debate again. (:
Thanks to all voters who take time to read this also!
This debate hinges around whether handguns protect or save more people. My opponent said our statistics are conflicting. I've proven why you need to prefer my evidence; meanwhile, my opponent doesn't make any stand on that debate. I've won that my evidence is more significant, so because my better evidence shows handguns kill more people then protected.
On to my opponent's first contention. One of the most important arguments is that the elastic clause is in the Constitution. This means that if necessary we can change a part of the Constitution. My evidence shows the extreme negative effects of handguns, mainly killing more than protecting.
My opponent's only defense for his contention 2 says that my evidence isn't updated. However, first off, none of my evidence is from the 1990's. They're all 2000 up until today. If you for some reason don't buy that, evidence from the 1990's doesn't mean it's not true. Therefore, I've successfully proven that handguns are rarely used in self-defense. Also, my opponent says he's protecting people's right to live. However, I'm literally protecting their lives. Handguns kill a significantly large amount of people, and in my case, NY Times 15 says these kinds of brutal weapons need to be outlawed. Finally, even if you do buy that my opponent is protecting people's right to live, there are other people who might want to end their lives. By enforcing a buyback, I am restricting those people's ability to do so, thereby protecting people's lives.
Let's go to my case.
My opponent again repeats that I ignore people who are protected. Look back to my Donohue 15 evidence, 1% of people used handguns successfully in self-defense. If you vote neg, you're voting for that 1%. If you vote aff, you vote for that 99%. My opponent says my evidence it's outdated. It's from 2014. I disagree with my opponent's statement.
Let's go to my illicit market argument.
Banning handguns solves for two reasons
a. Criminals can only get handguns by buying them from people who bought them legally " a ban solves the root cause
b. Restricting legal access to guns decreases the supply of guns in the illicit market thereby significantly raising the costs of handguns in the illicit market deterring access to criminals
I urge you to vote over quantity over quality. I've shown you how many people die from handguns out of accidents, suicides, and homicides. Without handguns, these deaths won't exist. And, I've shown how handguns are oppressive towards women, so if you vote neg, you encourage oppression towards women, which isn't quality of life.
Now on the reasons why you vote aff today.
This whole debate is comprised of whether the aff or neg causes more deaths. I'm the only one showing why my evidence of homicides and death are statistically significant. You have to prefer my evidence, so I've proven why handguns cause more deaths.
I also win on framework. If you vote neg, you continue to allow men to terrorize women with handguns. This is oppressive, which is awful for quality of life. I've proven that a buyback isn't undemocratic, so I also win that a buyback improves quantity of life and quality of life.
These are both of the reasons that you vote aff.
Finally, I want to emphasize my opponent's comments.
Of course, if I made any new points or arguments, don't vote on it, because that's not allowed.
I would also like to thank my opponent for this amazing debate, it's been challenging and fun.
And, thank you to the voters who had the time to analyze this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.