The U.S should ban guns
Read before accepting
So I'll argue that gun's should not be banned, while Pro will argue they should.
First Round is acceptance
straight of the bat, we I realized I didn't specify who the BOP would be on. Since I'm defending the status quo, I ask that the BOP be on Pro, otherwise I ask we let the votes decide.
Banned: Offically prohibit
C1: Part of our cuture
There is no denying Americans like guns. The United States is ranked #1 in the world for guns per capita, with 112 guns for every 100 residents. Our love for guns goes all the way back to the Revolutionary War, when we fought for our freedom to overthrow the British. This type of sentiment is emboidied into the American way of life, and much of that as to to with the right to bear arms.
C4: Our Law Enforcement and Military
One of the most important functions of government is to provide security in case of an attack. According to Adam Smith, he quotes "It should protect society against “the violence and invasion” of other societies." It referring to the government. If we ban guns, then Law Enforcment will no longer have any effective weapons to protect the public with. I mention below about how there are illegal guns in the market, and this would leave everybody defensiveless, and vulunerable.
There is a reason why our Law Enforcement didn't shutdown during the Federal government shutdown in 2013, because those are considered essential services. So, this argument is Utilitarian. banning guns would prove be a negative towards society, and it ought not to be implemented, because a common need among the citizens of the United States is the right to security, and without guns, our Law enforcement cannot sucessfully protect the citizens, without getting on an equal footholding.
C2: Guns are used for self-defense by the citizens of the United States
Guns are used by Americans for self-defense annually. Studies found that approximately 200,000 to 2million defensive gun uses occur each year  . , which show that guns save lives and protect against criminals. Let me compare this to the annual homicide rate.(4) You can see in 2013, the # of murders that occured were about 14,827. So the amount of times guns have been used for defensive purposes is nearly 100 times more than the total homicides that occured. Keep in mind, that not all of those murder's were commited by guns. Only 60%, or 8.855 murders. Well, you might think, "well gun bans would atleast prevent 8,885 murders."
So the United States has a big issue dealing with Illegal guns. There are approximately, 250 to 280 million guns in circulation in the U.S. In other words, 93% of gun crime is actually commited by illegal guns. (5) This number is so insanely high, it almost wouldn't make any significant difference, if all law abiding citizens were forced to give their guns away.
Now I will explain how CCW actually has benefited more. Ever since CCW states have enacted CCW's to their citizens, states have witnessed an 8.5% drop in murders, 5% in rapes, 7% in aggrevated assaults and 3% in robberies. So, in some states, CCW does serve as a detterent to crime. (7)
C3: Will hurt the economy
The gun industry itself generates 33 billion dollars for the American economy, and that supports about 220,000 jobs. Here is a breakdown of the economic impacts of the gun industry by state.
This graph gives us a breakdown of the economic benefits of the gun industry. It creates jobs, and creates revenue. Now, if we were to ban guns, this would be a negative impact on the economy. Those 220,000 jobs will go down the drain, and this will cause a rise in unemployment.
C4: A ban is not really practical.
Say the U.S passed some sort of leglisation banning guns, how practical and how effective would that be? There are nearly 280 million illegal guns already in the market, and history has shown as that banning things such as alcohol and drugs have cost the U.S government over trillions of dollars (8). So, why should there be any reason to believe a ban on guns would work? We also have to assume every American will be willing to give the guns they own. Which doesn't seem likely in anyway. Only 27% of Americans in a Gallup poll said they support banning guns.
Since we are both going to be giving constructive arguments, I think that it would be best that the BoP would be shared - I think that's the most logical conclusion. As for burdens, since the resolution says the word 'should' and not 'can and should', I only have to argue what there is a moral or ethical obligation to do - not if there is an actual way to do so (see: Moti Mizrahi in 2009 where he talks about a moral obligation to do something not meaning that you can do something, just that you should).
Before I begin, we need to deeply analyse the question of "why do we have guns in the modern era?" -- as this is what my case will be attacking (for if there is no reason to have guns, a ban would be a logical consequence of thought!).
I believe that Adam Hall had said it best in The Quiller Memorandum:
Jacques Lacan has done an enormous volume of work on the idea of the symbollic and the fantasy in his study of psychoanalysis of numerous patients. He finds that the phallus is a signifier of a lack of something, as well as a signifier of the difference of the sexes. (Quick note here, he talks of the phallus, not the penis; there is a difference between the organ and its symbolic representation within the analysable patient ... Lacan says 'phallus' for the symbolic representation, whereas Adam Hall had said 'penis' for both the organ and the symbolic representation -- this is just a difference of notation, I will be using Lacan's for this debate).
So far, we have seen that the gun exists as a rudimentary replacement for the male phallus in the current culture of 'gun culture' within the US - any hopes of banning guns are quickly dismissed, for a ban on guns would be the castration of the male's obsession with his phallus. This fear of castration is actually stemmed from a fear of the father  and his authority over the son - the 'castration complex', as Lacan calls it, is the acceptance of the father's authority and the authority of the Symbolic Order (as opposed to the Real or Imaginary Orders).
Thus, my sole contention - guns are patriarchal tools meant to oppress the child, and are used to suppress the Oedipal Complex of the son as a means of social repression.
Subpoint A. Patriarchy
It is quite simple to see that the guns are a symptom of the patriarchy. Look above at my note on the Lacanian idea of the Castration Complex, where this fear is actually stemmed from the fear of the Father and his power over the Symbolic Order. Patriarchy is defined simply as a form of community wherein the father is the head of power , so we can see that this fear further entrenches the familial and societal Father.
And, the impacts can be disastorous if we let the patriarchy go free -- massive, large-scale war , domestic violence , a crippling of democracy , and so on and so on (cue Slavoj wiping his nose).
Subpoint B. Suppression of Oedipus
(If you do not know the story of Oedipus, read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, it is useful)
If the child is forced to submit to society, it enters into the Nuclear Family, a perfect family – society’s grand design for conformity and control – if everyone is the perfect family then no one will question society at all and the hierarchies and exploitation can continue . This is the exploitation of the child into the future by the Father and the Symbolic Order - it is no different than the patriarchy's violence on the child, nor is it different than slavery, nor is it different than class warfare - the only difference is that it occurs within the family's house.
When the state uses excuses such as Oedipus to stop the rebellion – this leads the child to desire their own repression, fascism – they question the hierarchies of society and the state punishes the child by making them feel like they hate their parents and want to rebel – the child will desire their own repression by wanting the hierarchies of society to control them so that they do not seem like they are hurting their parents – we must not let this exploitation happen . Let us ban guns and take the power from the Father to take away his exploitation of the Child through the excuse of Oedipus. Without doing so, we literally put into place a hierarchy that is the same as slavery - where the only difference, again, is where it is located: within the family's house.Rebuttals:
I don't have enough time to give all rebuttals in this round (nor enough space), so I reserve the right to continue to give rebuttals and give some defense in the next round.
I will only be attacking my opponent's third (?) contention, where he talks about the economic harms that are shown from banning guns. Looking at what he said is that there is a $33 billion loss and a 220,000 job loss when we ban guns. Maybe, I do not know if that is the full picture, but what I do know is that clinging to hopes of macroeconomic policy is a fruitless and oppressive act. Berik and Rodgers, in 2008 in Social Justice and Gender Equality: Rethinking Development Strategies and Macroeconomic Policies write that macroeconomic policies are far from gender neutral; they have empirically been proven to unequally burden women into submission of the patriarchy. Even if this is true, don't give my opponent access to this point - even if there is some $33 billion loss, the loss is the only way that we can attempt to try to revitalise gender communications and have a fair and equal society! His $33 billion loss is not as big of an impact as the patriarchy, so don't even evaluate it at the end of the round.
. Warren and Cady, 1994, Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections
. Ishkanian, 2007, En-gendering Civil Society and Democracy-Building: The Anti-Domestic Violence Campaign in Armenia, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, Volume 14, Number 4, Winter 2007
. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, 1972, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
See, the problem that both me and my opponent made is that I'm arguing for the most common definition of "gun", while my opponent is arguing for something else. Since, we both failed to reiliterate, Hopefully, voters will choose my definition of gun. If we were arguing for my definition, it's safe to say Pro has conceded the round.
Gun: a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.
However, just for fun, I'll argue against this Kritik that my opponent has put forth.
Pro challenged my resolution with Kritiks which I will address below. By doing so, the BoP (Burden of Proof) falls on Pro to justify that her Kritik definitely negates my resolution. It is sufficient for me to simply bring sufficient doubt to her claim to be awarded the win.
Pro argues that we should follow Moti Mizrahi's framework about moral obligation, but why should we? Pro doesn't give us any good reasons to follow his idea, and simply says we should. Since the BOP is now effectively on Pro, she needs to prove that Moti Mzrahi's idea is something we should follow.
The basis on this topic is based on a Utilitarian Principle. If bannings guns were to to be implemented, it should benefit most of society. Pro is indicating that the prohibition of guns would reduce patriarchy, but this ultimately backfires against her. Pro forgets that the government of the United States is mainly dominated by males. When you give the government the authority to force somebody to do something with their body, it is more gives the male dominated government more power, therefore it's more patriarchy. Also worth noting, is that society is female-dominated in the U.S. Pro's idea of banning guns would actually increase patriarchy, thus making it undesirable.
Pro also forgets that a gun is simply a tool. A tool is could be something linked to partiachy, but overall it's up to the people who use that tool who decide what they want to do with it. Pro is suggesting that we deny people the choice to do what they want with her bodies, which results in more patriarchy. By treating every individual who has a gun as a mindless syncophant of the patriarchy, and then forcibly removing the perceived link between them and that patriarchy, Pro is essentially supporting mass rape of the populace, violating their right to ownership and even destroying any concept of independent thought. This patriarchy as Pro said before, which would mean it does not help the majority of society, since it violates the freedom of choice, and it creates the oppurtunity for a more male-dominated society.
In a country such as America, we take our liberty very seriously, and banning guns will make alot of Americans mad. This could lead to violent protests by those who's guns have been taken away from them. Another point I'd like to make is that banning guns could be a slippery slope to other things the government want to ban. It's dangerous to allow government take hold of people's personal lives.
Overall, Pro fails to show that banning guns would result in a decrease of patriarchy, because the very act of government overreach is patrarchy. Pro's argument is a psychological one, but she forgets that psychological effects are very difficult to determine because people will always be dramatically different, and trying to get an accurate assessment of how peoples' minds will change as a result of the removal of a single tool from society is very difficult. So, I have dismantled Pro's case by showing that overreaching government will result in more patriarchy, thus the argument is negated.
Framework: Con talked about how I need to justify my framework for using Moti Mizrahi's idea that when we look at the word 'should' it only entails a moral or ethical approach to the resolution, not a way to do so and so on (funding, specification of who enforces, and so on). Basically Mizrahi's entire paper (I cannot link because it is an academic paper, sorry) is saying that if you ought to do something, you don't need to actually do it if it is impossible. He gives the example of "you ought to help someone else in a car accident that you hit. Are you free from all moral obligation if your legs are broken?" He argues that no, you are not free from moral obligation, you are just free from having to act on that obligation. Big difference -- prefer this over a lack of framework on the con side of things.
Con's definition of gun is fine. I do have a problem of a lack of specificity (e.g. a BB gun could be counted and modern intuition is that there is a difference between a BB gun and a normal gun), so I'd suggest an addendum saying something along the lines of "made to kill humans or animals" -- fairly innocent, I won't use that in this round against you, just a matter of specificity I felt we were lacking.
For the burden debate, since we both provided cases, again, the BoP should be split. How is there no BoP to the side that gave the first speech? I do not understand this, but you will find a loophole to allow yourself this and so on.
Kritik: I didn't give a kritik. A kritik is basically attacking a fundamental assumption of the affirmative case as a means to negate, or a fundamental mindset, and so on. I didn't do that -- I provided you some critical literature (not kritikal literature) to see the world through the lens of a psychoanalytic mind. I didn't challenge the resolution at all, I didn't negate the resolution ... look at my case again, I affirmed the resolution claiming that the mind of the phallus is inherently harmful.
Utilitarianism: Nah. Utilitarianism is such a defeated concept to look at the world through. Were most Germans okay with the Nazis coming to power in 1933, as they thought it would benefit the most? Of course. Were most Germans okay with Krystalnacht? It appears so - a few spoke out, but certainly not the majority -- the majority was given more power so this was a good thing.
I ask you to just use common sense and go for the most good, not necessarily the most good for the most people. There's a fine distinction yet the distinction is important.
Patriarchy: My opponent equates government mostly being run by men as to being dominated by men. He equates someone running for office meaning that they intellectually and politically are your 'owner' or are dominant above you, as is the case in the patriarchy, and so on. However, unless you can show that these people are actually dominating over us and are oppressing all over the rule of the fathers, I see no reason that correlation would entail causation. Put another way; just because there exist men as the leaders doesn't make the men patriarchal -- what if it is just chance? I know that the Congress has been invested in protecting women's interests in current times, how is this inherently patriarchal? I am never given a reason to prefer your interpretation of government over my interpretation of the phallus and the gun. He has no sources, simply analytics of the situation -- we can never verify what he is saying.
Then, he goes on to say that a gun is simply a tool and taking it away does a few things: a. treats everyone as a mindless synchophant of the patriarchy, b. the same as massive rape of the populace, c. destroying the concept of independent thought. That's quite a large claim, and I'll tell you why the claim simply falls apart. I don't think my opponent has understood my case at all. I can summarise as such: guns are the representing the phallus, taking away the phallus or its representations are the 'castration complex' rooted deeply in the fear of the Father. Therefore, I claim, taking away guns frightens people foremost because it is the Father's 'castration complex' as Lacan coins (or was it Freud? I'll relook at my notes). Then, as the Father's power grows it has: 1. more patriarchy within society, 2. a supression of the Oedipus complex.
His analysis is wrong. When the vast majority of people simply own a gun because of fear of the Father and his control over the people, that would be the very definition of patriarchy. I can give you some a card if you want saying that 3 times as many men own guns than women , but I think that even without this huge gap, a penis replacement being the main reason that we have guns is simply male-oriented within itself and is patriarchal. I don't treat people as mindless anythings -- I treat them as people that are afraid of their Fathers and thus have guns because of the castration complex ... I don't treat them as inferior and so on, I treat them the same -- however, I think that we need to take ourselves out of this Father-oriented mindset that we have so willingly put ourselves into.
Then, he calls my proposal the massive rape of the populace. No comment - this is reducio ad absurdum at its finest ... I am not willingly raping the people, so how is this relevant to this conversation? I'd rather we talk about real world implications than accuse each other of supporting something so vile. And then he says that I destroy the concept of independent thought. Not so, I claim, banning guns isn't banning free though -- owning something is not the same as free thought. Lets say I ban murder -- am I banning free thought of the populace? No, I claim, because murder isn't a type of free thought. Let's say I ban owning a nuclear bomb -- banning free thought? No, for the exact same reason. And then as for your liberty analysis, I will touch on that later on.
Oedipus: He drops this -- no matter what, flow this back to my side of the debate. He is doing the same as slavery I claim, he never attacks this - he only attacks patriarchy, but my Oedipus reasoning isn't the same as the patriarchy reasoning. This is dropped -- take this as a concession of this point.
I give you, one again, the example of Nazi Germany: it was the culture of the Nazis to work the concentration camps and so on. Is banning them inherently bad? Of course not, I claim, culture does not supercede moral action! Just cross apply this example to this first contention, it is sufficiently either: 1. rebutted or 2. dismissed as not relevant.
C4. Law enforcement and military
The conflation of law enforcement and protection is a simple one to make, however thinking that law enforcement exists to actually protect you and your family and so on is a fatally flawed idea. In the United States in the status quo, which the con world exists within, it has been shown through numerous court cases that police do not have to protect you from harm and so on -- that is not their duty! Their duty isn't to save life or whatever, so why give them this duty needlessly?
You can protect yourself from crime with an alternative: reduce crime by bringing people out of systemic poverty and so on. In what Slavoj Zizek calls "Subjective Violence" (but I refer to as normal violence), there is always a systemic aspect of violence that is fueling it. If we solve for the systemic, we solve for the subjective -- we solve for all crime if we fulfill my counterplan! No need for guns and so on since there is no reason to have guns, for poverty is the cause of violent subjective violence.
C2. Self defense
Let's analyse his source saying that there is a rampant illegal gun issue in the US  (which of course he decided to never link to). His source actually says sometihng else than he is claiming. He said there is this 93% of gun crime is by illegal guns. However, look to his source, and see that a significant smaller number of inmates were in prison for using illegal guns at the time of crime and so on than 93%, even if we account for the idea that it is possible that some may have committed more than one crime.
The FBI reports that there were only 200 people that were actually defended against from the commission of a crime (self defense of someone committing a felony, say stealing and so on) . These people could all be solved by my above counter-plan, 200 people is such a small number that it could just be an accident of the data and so on -- the specifics of my counterplan solve because tasers do the same good, but don't uphold patriarchy.
No response -- my life is more important than a few dollars. Patriarchy causes wars, I don't think you losing jobs is more important than everyone losing their lives.
C4. Not practical
See Moti Mizrahi; it doesn't need to be practical, just ethical. It probably wasn't practical to try Nazis for war crimes, but we did it anyways because we had to.
Pro says that I need to show that these people are dominating over us, but lets' look at the defintion of Patriarchy.
Patriarchy.: a family, group, or government controlled by a man or a group of men
Therefore,what I said still applies. The government is incharge of its' citizens, therefore it is in control of the country. The fact that the government is mainly male, proves my point. According to this article, it even admits that. Pro says congress is working on protecting women interests, but fails to actually say what they are, and if they are actually working.
Pro says that gun control is not an example of correlation=causation, but the very act itself indicates more patriarchy. The government is forcing people to do something is an example of this. Regardless, I fail to see how banning guns woild limit patriarchy like Pro says, because Pro doesn't take into factor, that a gun is simply a tool, and it's up to the individual to decide how to use it appropriately. Pro doesn't give us any significant information that indiciates that the usage of the Male phallus gun is more harmful.
Pro analogy on Nazi Germany makes sense, but I fail to see how this would equate to banning guns. Pro doesn't really explain how banning guns is the moral thing to do. I already have shown that guns saves lives, and this is definitely moral, if I follow the utilairian principle. If there is nothing significantly negative about the thing that should be preserved, then I see no reason to ban it.
=Law enforcement and Military=
The very job of law enforcemnet is to protect people from danger, and I'm kind of suprised Pro is actually contesting this.
Murdering and inflicting on the right to live is against the law. The role of law enforcement is to keeping the peace, law enforcement, protection of people and property and the investigation of crimes. Therefore, protecting people is part of the social contract. Pro's solution to prevent murder is to solve poverty. I agree with this, but this wouldn't protect people from an immient threat. If a robber was breaking into somebodies house, resolving the poverty issue wouldn't have any impact, because it's a long term goal. Nobody will be there to stop the robber, because the cops aren't armed, and neither are the citizens.
My apologizes. For not linking the site. I'll provide a link in the description, but what say is true. I don't know what Pro is referring to, since the link is broken, I fail to see how it makes a difference, since the 93% number never said all of those people were arrested.
I took a screenshot of the FBI report showing the defensive gun use.
From 2007-2011, guns were used 235,700 times against violent crime, and 103,000 against property crime. Very clear evidence that guns are used for self-defense. Keep in mind, Only 61% of gun crime was actually reported, so the number may very well be much higher. This is the same link Pro used, but it was broken, so I'll provide the link.
Pro is alternating arguments between her definition of gun and mine. Her first 2 rebutalls were adressing my definition of guns, but for some reason she choose her's for this rebutall.
Anyways, not once did Pro show Patriarchy causes wars. I also have no reason to believe her right to live is more important than thousands of people losing their job, espcially since using the phallus gun is simply a choice.
= Not practical=
I don't agree with this analogy. Why wasn't it practical? I can't really see why it isn't. They were in charge of killing millions of people. (not saying this for argument sake)
Since I did have more time to argue against con's case and rebuild mine, I think that it is only ethical to pass this round from any more rebuttals or case-strengthening. I wouldn't vote me down for this round, I just think its most fair to Tajshar2k if I decide to not continue my advantage until the very end.
But, I can tell you how to make your decision: weigh our impacts in terms of their actual impact, not just their amount (1 major impact is more important than 3 minor ones, for instance). My opponent (given that his case still stands) has: part of our culture, military & police need them, self defense, economy, non-practicality. I have (given that my case still stands): war, domestic violence, democracy is in shambles, suppression of Oedipus and the creation of the in-home slavery (this was actually dropped so it should be weighed on my side no matter what), and so on.
Thanks Tajshar2k, sorry that my case made me on your no-more-debating list, I hoped to have fun on this website for once.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|