The US government should ban guns
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||1 month ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||276 times||Debate No:||95239|
If you want to accept, let me know.
This is a normative resolution, thus the burden of proof falls on the both of us. Also, it is imperative that definitions account for the specific language in the resolution.
Ban: Confiscate and outlaw, while placing penalties on owning said product, (in this case, guns.)
We need weigh the impact of the general welfare of the people in today’s debate higher than any other impact. This is due to the fact that lives are priceless and the prevailing theories about debates such as this is that the number of people who are harmed by guns are a much bigger problem than the economy, which can always be fixed. Thus, if I can prove that the gun ban promotes the general welfare of the people, then the judges should feel comfortable to vote in my favor, and vice-versa for my opponent.
Contention 1: Gun bans have been successful in reducing gun violence
There is significant evidence pointing toward national gun bans to be the best way to reduce gun violence and crime. To see this, we turn toward Australia, the nation that has single-handedly decimated the gun violence in their own nation. This was accomplished by passing the National Firearms Agreement of 1996 as a reaction to the brutal massacre at a Tasmanian Seaside Resort (1). Harvard in 2007 reported that the result was that within 7 years of the installment of the sweeping policy that outlawed the majority of firearms and raised penalties for owning said weapons, the firearm suicide rate was cut in half from over 2/100,000 to 1.1/100,000 (1). This created a major dip in the total suicide rate not relating to firearms, as shown by the Guardian in June of 2016 when it states that the 1996 reforms resulted in the rising rate of suicides non-firearm suicides and homicides from 2.1% a year to 1.4% decline, which researchers attribute to the fact that people were not looking toward other methods of suicide or homicide (2). As previously mentioned, the rate of homicides also decreased significantly after the reforms were passed. The New York Times reports that despite the growing population of Australia, and the conservative nature of the government, these reforms did pass and resulted in the homicide rate decreasing by 50% in the decade after installment and has been on the decline since (3). Again, the rate of total homicide was shown to decrease as well, as criminals did not switch to another weapon to commit the crime they would have intended to have done (3). This can be attributed to the fact that guns are the most available type of weapon with a significant chance to inflict mortal damage. A knife is unwieldy and does not result in the same mortality rate as guns. The Annals of Emergency Medicine Journal in a 2003 report examined 4,122 patients and found that of those who were shot, 1/3 of them died, while only 7.7% died from knife wounds (4). It is harder to approach someone and aim for a vital organ without the victim knowing than it is to simply aim for a vital organ of said victim with a weapon. Given the fact that the majority of the guns used in homicides today are handguns, (as compiled from FBI data,) we can most definitely see that weapons which are small and fit in one’s hand are hard to see from the perspective of an unsuspecting victim (5). By decreasing the murder rate, we establish more peace in cities and suburbs that were fraught with gun violence beforehand, thus protecting the safety of the people and promoting the general welfare. We provide a safe environment for people to live in which ultimately means we protect their right to life without due process, as the taking of a life is in violation of this, which is again, promoting the general welfare of the people. Thus, one must cast a vote in the affirmation.
Contention 2: Prevent gun accidents from occurring as well as lapses in judgement
Gun accidents are prevalent in the status quo, much to the ire of many people. What is more disturbing is who fall victim in these gun accidents. Slate magazine quoted David Hemmingway in his book Private Guns, Public Health of the University of Michigan Press in 2006 which states that children are nine times more likely to die by gun accident in the US than any other nation in the developed world (6). These are preventable circumstances and should never occur as the children are our future educators, lawyers, and basically our entire job force. Despite the fact that there are training methods for children to prevent accidents like these from occurring, there is significant evidence to the contrary. Hardy MS of the Eckerd College in St. Petersburg FL in a report showed that out of 34 children aged 4-7, even after given the safety program, over 50% of them actually played with a firearm when given an opportunity to do so (7). With over 1 million children living in a household where a firearm is unlocked and not put away, or loaded according to the International Business Times in January of 2016, we can see that the current gun culture has ruined many people’s lives (8). However, this brings us to the question, of whether there is a safe way to store a firearm. The answer is a resounding no. The American Journal of Epidemiology found correlations between owning a firearm and increased chance of homicide, and suicide. Specifically speaking, nearly ¾ of suicide victims lived in a household with a gun, which is the same for 42% of homicide victims (9). What is more disturbing is the fact that a huge portion of the homicides were attributed to family disagreements, making up over 30% of homicides (9). People are simply not rational to be able to be under the stress of society, their job, their family, and their own hopes to own a weapon and assume that they will use it correctly. This is especially true if we look at American Medical News which reports in 2010 that there are about 15 million adults with depression in a given year, many of whom will not receive treatment (10). In fact, a 201 Live-science article reports that half of the depressed population does not get the treatment they need (11). This certainly has a correlation with the suicide rate and shows that Americans simply cannot own weapons in the way we want to in the status quo with millions of guns in circulation. In other words, we prevent the people who need psychological help from committing suicide while providing for the welfare of children and guaranteeing that the American people are not as likely to die from their own weapons. Thus, I am upholding the framework which states that we care about the people that will be effected by the resolution, ultimately leading to an obvious vote in the affirmation.
Contention 3: Upholding life
It is the sworn duty of the government to uphold the and protect the rights of the people so they do not become slaves to an oppressive and abusive government. By affirming, we do this because we set a precedent for upholding the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as outlined by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence (12). These principles are ingrained in American culture as the unalienable rights that all people are entitled to, and that all threats to those rights are, by nature, not in the best nature of the US. In fact, these are such American ideals that they are represented in the constitution by the Due Process clause in the constitution, meaning that everyone has these unalienable rights unless proven guilty of a crime worthy of having those rights taken away, and the 14th amendment which repeated the fact that everyone is equal under the law and has the right to life, liberty, and property. These ideas are based on the philosophy of John Locke, an enlightenment figure who inspired the creation of our government (13). This leads us to realize that by not holding up the job of the government, we are suppressing the people’s rights by allowing copious gun violence to continue and thus violating their autonomous right to life without due process of law. In this way, the US has an obligation to fix this problem posthaste and stop the violation of rights in the US, thus promoting the general welfare by giving people what they were promised by the political documents that established our country.
We need to affirm the resolution and save lives that would be lost without our ability to counter the threat. By doing so we prevent homicides, suicides, accidents, lapses of judgement, and to protect the rights of the American people from further encroachment. I have shown that under the affirmative world, the general welfare is upheld and thus, fulfilling my burden of proof, thank you.
"These principles are ingrained in American culture as the unalienable rights that all people are entitled to, & that all threats to those rights are, by nature, not in the best nature of the US. In fact, these are such American ideals that they're represented in the constitution by the Due Process clause in the constitution, meaning that everyone has these unalienable rights unless proven guilty of a crime worthy of having those rights taken away, & the 14th amendment which repeated the fact that everyone is equal under the law & has the right to life, liberty, & property. "
That is essentially my argument based on the rights of the people. Americans have a right to life, liberty, & property + pursuit of happiness. The government is constructed & its purpose is to protect those rights, among them, the 2nd amendment. Americans have a right to use their property, in this case guns, to protect their life, liberties, property, & pursuit of happiness. It is estimated that 1/3 to even 1/2 of the population own guns, that is 100-150 million people.  There is around 33,600 deaths by guns annually, includes accident, negligent, murder, & suicides.  That means that .0003% of the population did something resulting in a life taken, that also means that 99.9997% was accident free, no suicide or homicides. Legally, the other 99-149 million+ gun owners shall be free & the government has 0 reason to attempt to deny them of that right based on due process. Cause they have not committed a crime to warrant an arrest, placed on trail, & certainly not found guilty of trail by a jury of their peers. Furthermore, 90% of the people oppose a complete ban and confiscation.  So, from a legal & a freedom aspect, there should not be a gun ban.
Gun bans don't work
Comparing pre & post gun ban crime rates for the UK, Ireland, Jamaica, & Australia, it tells you that the murder rates increased or was similar to pre gun ban.   However, other crimes did indeed increase, the UK is considered the most dangerous nation in Europe, worse than the US & South Africa.  However, there is a law in Kennesaw GA, that requires heads of households to own a gun & crime rates have decreased, resulting in a murder free environment for 25 years, despite predictions that that American county would become the wild west.  Whereas, other counties enacting opposite laws have seen increases in crime rates.  Lets look at the most painfully obvious proof that gun ban doesn't work... At our schools. The law abiding Americans accept this obviously proven mistake at great cost to, as you said, America's future. Instead of allowing responsible people, I'm sure we agree that most teachers are responsible, whom owns a firearm to conceal carry, or the principle, or someone there to have access to their gun to defend the school against a potential intruders.
There are a multitude of potential threats the American people face. Animal attacks in the 100s of 1000s for just dogs , criminals, invasion, & tyrannical government. These threats are real, a ban & confiscation of firearms would result in much larger number of potential fatalities against animals, criminals would be embolden by their victims reduced chances, invasion of the United States could forget about strategic planning for the stiff resistance of the American people thanks to a ban, & the people would be forced to live under a government that controls the monopoly of force which is a very dangerous gamble to take. A famous quote comes to mind when I write this, "Those that give up liberty for temporary safety will lose both & deserve neither"
Now for a comparison between legal defense gun uses vs illegal gun uses in crime.
" A 1995 study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology based upon a 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard. " 
The estimated number of times guns are used in defense against a criminal range in the low 100,000-millions. Report from the CDC puts the number of times Americans used a gun to frighten an intruder away at about 500,000.  The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology estimates that the number of times guns are used in defense is over 1 million.  A 1982 survey of felons in prison concluded that 34% was scared off from a gun owner, 40% didn't commit a crime out of a belief that the victim was in possession of gun, & 69% of them knew someone else that were scared off with a gun.  The lowest estimates of occasions that Americans use guns in defense is multiple times higher than they are used to murder. Average estimates are about the same number of times guns are used illegally, high estimates rivals or surpasses violent crimes. The CDC also concluded that gun ownership is an important crime deterrent. 
Bad for the economy
A ban on guns would result in a serious problem for the economy, there are over 155,000 workers that are good paying jobs in that industry. Even more workers that revolves around that industry. Those businesses provide near $7 billion in taxes, & near $50 billion to the economy. A ban would cause those people their jobs, assuming they have a families it easily affects 310,000 people not counting real possibility that they have children.  Entire states are dependent on the gun industries, the gun industry employs more people then GM.  To put it in a little perspective, America's gun industries, if they were a nation, would rank around 82nd wealthiest nation in the world, there are 173 nations.  So the gun industry provides America with more money than half of the world's nations can provide itself.
Violence would ensue
The American reaction towards a call of confiscation would be negative to say the least. As I said earlier in this round, 90% of Americans oppose a total gun ban & any attempt to confiscate them. A large % of Americans refuse to register their weapons.   The last time authorities went on a hell bent mission of gun confiscation resulted in the 'shot hear round the world' , I don't imagine the reactions of freedom loving people in the United States would respond much differently. The people of the United States having been born & raised understanding that the 2nd amendment is the ultimate line of defense against tyranny, & knowing that when seconds truly matter, cops are minutes away. Americans will not quietly surrender what is considered the most important right the American people have.
Rebuttal 1: 2nd amendment
The 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right to own weapons without restriction. The Cornell Legal Dictionary states the exact language of the 2nd amendment as such:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (1)
An individual does not have the right to own a firearm without restriction. In fact, a Supreme Court case has established that the 2nd amendment is fluid in interpretation. The case in question is the United States vs. Miller case in 1934 which dealt with the regulation of a sawed-off shotgun under the National Firearms Act of the 1930s and established the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to establish militias to counter oppression, and that since the sawed-off shotgun had any reasonable relationship with a well-regulated militia, the 2nd amendment did not protect it (1). While other precedents later established the contrary, the fact that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was considered to be for the purposes of a militia still continues. Not only this, but there have been gun bans before other precedents have been set. For instance, there have been Assault Weapons Bans and provisions in the early 1990s that was not struck down as constitutional. However, if you really want a look at how people interpret the 2nd amendment, we need to look at popular opinion. According to a poll conducted by YouGov and the Huffington Post, over 80% of people support not allowing people to purchase guns if they are on the terrorist watch list (2). This, in itself is a gun ban, which falls under the resolution regardless of the type of weapon, or person purchasing said weapon. Thus resolution states “a” gun ban, not a “total gun ban” in which all weapons are confiscated or outlawed. Thus, the second amendment does not apply in this debate. Remember, we are talking about the general welfare of the people, which affirming the right to life does, while the second amendment has only led to people protecting the right of those to shoot others, the right to life is universally upheld by everyone and is more ingrained into society than the 2nd amendment. My opponent also claims that the majority of the gun owners in the US do not actually commit crimes or fall victim to gun accidents. I would be inclined to agree were it not for my framework. My framework states that we only value the promotion of the general welfare, and not the scope of the people affected. Even if I can only prove that the number of accidental shootings decreased, or the crime decreased is minimal, I still win based on the fact that the general welfare of the people is better off.
Rebuttal 2: Violent crime rate
My opponent is mistaken significantly. Not only have I proven the fact that there has been a notable decrease in homicide and suicide with or without guns used by 1.4% per annum (3), but he cites a questionable statistic that misses the point. My opponent claims that the prevalence of other crimes increased, but has yet to link it to the gun ban. Since the link is never made, the entire statistic is meaningless. This is especially true since the author of the NCPA article was Howard Nemerov, someone unknown to the world of academic publishing and posts articles to the website freerepublic.com, leading me to believe that at best, this source is questionable. I will address the argument that the rate of crime returned to pre-ban rates with a graph modeling the actual decrease in crime. We can look toward the evidence compiled from New York Times for this, from a previously used statistic (4).
Also, there have been no mass shootings thus far in Australia since the gun ban, saving precious lives. Next, my opponent brings up Kennesaw, Georgia’s law that mandates gun ownership which purportedly stopped the city from devolving into the “wild, wild, west.” This is likely to occur anyway given the demographics and population of the city. City-Data reports a population of under 50,000 people and an average income about $10,000 higher than the rest of the state (5). Compare this to the millions living in Houston, New York, San Diego, and Philadelphia (6). The cities that are more susceptible to gun violence are in places where there are plenty of people, and poverty. This is because people look toward crime as a means of escape and possibly funding if they are part of organized crime, and that there are more people to shoot at with a greater risk of conflict when people are in close proximity. Regardless, the Kennesaw example simply does not work, and is clearly not representative of all of America. My opponent then calls to action through the policy of allowing teachers, principals, and other school officials to carry weapons. There is a major problem with this argument, and that one is human error. The American Journal of Epidemiology finds significant correlations between owning a firearm and gun violence in the form of homicide and suicide (7). It is not apparent that a teacher, principal, or whatever school official would not just leave the weapon out in the open. I already brought up the fact that over 1 million children live in a home with an unlocked or loaded weapon, which could mean access to said firearm and resulting in mass shootings as well as gun accidents (8). Ultimately, the gun ban proposal in Australia is shown to have worked by my evidence provided. Also, the counter-proposal to the gun ban could lead to more harm and more of a threat to the general welfare of the people.
Rebuttal 3: Defense
My opponent first states that guns are used to prevent tyrannical government takeovers, animals that would attack people, and criminals. Later, he cites a report claiming a significant deterrent between gun ownership and deterrence of crime. Live-Science reports that Boston University conducted a similar study and found evidence correlating higher homicide rates and gun ownership (9). Not only this, but I have already linked owning a weapon with the higher chance of ending up dead due to homicide or suicide as reported from the American Journal of Epidemiology (7). Not only this, but the study was conducted in 1995, during a federal weapons ban and higher incarceration rates. In other words, the times were different, and since the criminals were unaware of who had a gun due to said ban, the fear of a gun would be irrational. My opponent also brings up a poll of inmates which, in his own statistic, proves to be unreliable as the lead of the study restricted the sample size to those who had begun their sentences in 1979 or have been out of jail since then (10). It goes without saying that the fact that people were still scared of guns under my opponents estimate during the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban that proves despite what restrictions we place on guns; people will still be frightened as they are not rational actors. Not only this, but lowered crime rates as shown by Australia would suggest less of a need to use guns as self-defense as opposed to a knife or any other weapon. The CDC report is not shocking in its results given the fact that, as reported by LA Times, the CDC for the past 20 years have been forbidden from advocating or spending money to promote gun control meaning that the research had to be stopped, despite its truth or fallacious value (11). This proves that the CDC is basically required to promote the gun owning population, or suffer from lawsuits if their data proves differently. In other words, my offensive arguments hold water in today’s debate, meaning an affirmative vote is necessary.
Rebuttal 4: Economy
First, there are other industries where manufacturing other goods besides guns can occur. Also, given the lives lost by not affirming this resolution, this impact is not as important. I even state in my framework that the economy can be fixed, but once a life is lost, it can’t be brought back.
Rebuttal 5: Violence would ensue
I never argued for a total gun ban, as this was not part of the resolution. I have only addressed Australia’s model, which was not a complete ban either. I have already shown you that there is support for a ban on firearms sold to those on the terrorist watch list, which would be a gun ban as well, with over 80% of people in favor of the idea (2). In other words, there is no guaranteed violent crime outbreak from NRA supporters. There would be outrage by some, as shown by the fact that conservative officials were in charge of the NFA in Australia, but the saving of people is a bipartisan issue, and I am certain people will see it that way, just like people did after the NFA was passed.
My burden in this debate is to prove that a gun ban would be beneficial to the people’s general welfare, as stated in the framework of the debate which my opponent has yet to challenge. Thus, this is a victory for the affirmation.
Freedom & Law
The confiscation, outlawing, & penalization of the ownership of guns. That is what your definition presented means. That means confiscating people of their weapons, making it illegal to own one, & if anyone that slipped through the cracks & caught later then they will be charged with a crime.
The resolution is the US should ban guns, not the US government should ban certain people of having guns. As you also stated in your previous round "the Due Process clause in the constitution, meaning that everyone has these unalienable rights unless proven guilty of a crime worthy of having those rights taken away,"
The 2nd amendment is an individual right, an expert on the English language    as well as a much newer Supreme Court cases states it to be the case.   State constitutions calling it as such.  The meaning come even more clear when you also look at the intent of the Founders. Essentially an overturned court case hold no importance at all. Even if it did, assault weapons most definitely would fall under such arguments and therefore shouldn't result in banning them. However this argument regards all guns.
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." " Samuel Adams. 
In order for the government to deny everyone's right to bear arms, they can't make the case of the 'greater good of the general welfare', they must make the case for each individual has committed a crime grave enough to warrant that person's right be restricted for the 'greater good', cause due process. This can't be done for 99.99% majority hasn't committed a crime
"I already brought up the fact that over 1 million children live in a home with an unlocked or loaded weapon,"
I've already brought up laws already established that penalizes negligence & child endangerment, if that law can't be enforced with only 2 million guilty. There is no way humanly possible to enforce a law on 100-150 million people whom are against such a thing and has already act in defiance of such things.
Estimated crime with the use of a gun is at 500,000, the number of cases in defense of a crime is considerably more. Since there already laws established under due process to restrict people convicted of a crime grave enough to warrant a restriction. There are not among the debate like the 10s of millions innocent who are accident, homicide, or suicide free, that would be affected by the definition presented. A person convicted of a crime results in their rights be restricted, not everyone's right. That is due process So again from the aspect of freedom & legality, this argument is done.
Suicide is a victim less 'crime', ultimately the peoples' right to do so. A person has a right to their own, hence their right to end it if they wish. Therefore, the act of voluntarily taking ones own life as a reason to remove the vast majority of the peoples' right to defend theirs should be dropped & ignored.
In my last round I showed that a large % of criminals was scared off before completion of a crime & even prevented a crime from taking place. This mindset for anyone that values their self preservation will exist anywhere in the world, including Australia. After the gun ban in Australia, more people became victims cause they, the criminals, were emboldened, less afraid of their life being taken.
From pro's source "It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United
Why? Cause the American people in vast numbers refuse to follow suit with such things as buybacks & registering. The mindset of Australians & Americans are different. There is historic evidence that Americans won't rid themselves the right to bear arms cause a fraction of 1% of the population use their gun illegally & irresponsibly. You think the defiance would cease in the face of forced confiscation? That's wishful thinking.
"This proves that the CDC is basically required to promote the gun owning population, or suffer from lawsuits if their data proves differently." Wild assertion, if that was the case, the US government, whom is actively bent on gun control, wouldn't have funded it.
My opponents attempt to rebut the facts that despite predictions of Kennesaw becoming a war zone after the law passed didn't come to light. Crime rates reduced across the board after the law was passed, just as crime rates increased in other parts of the the US & world following bans including Australia. The only difference in crime rates before and after the ban in Australia, UK, Jamaica, ext was the ban,  so logic dictates that gun ownership is a major factor in the crime rates.
Mexico, strict gun control is in a major war with their armed citizens whom are possession of them. 
The United Kingdom, strict gun laws, regarded my dangerous nation in Europe, worse then the United States. 
Gun ownership is considered an important crime deterrent. The police force in the United States doesn't prevent crime, they just catch the criminals that commit the crime. Officers arrive after the fact, people must be able to protect themselves when those seconds matter then report the crime afterwards.
There are 100s 1000s of animal attacks a year, millions of criminals committing crimes,without a gun every year, government abuse, I've seen in person, and increase risk of invasion. America's superpower status is waning, China status of becoming a thing, as well as Russia. Tensions rising in world, America's natural defenses of distance and geographic position is null in modern times. It may not happen within the nest 50 years but America wasn't always the most powerful & its not logical to assume that we will away be most powerful. The right to bear arms was also established so that a foreign nation can't invade & subject us to the types of harshness that the Nazis placed on those lands they occupied as well as against their own people. Or Japan's Nanking Rape where national armies abandon the city leaving the people there with no means of defense.
America is not immune to tyranny or invasion, the British ruled, they were pushed out but slavery existed, then gun control measures existed to prevent blacks from rising up and dealing with this tyranny. 
The economic toll on America & whole states would be negatively affected. 300,000+ people would take a hit which can itself result in a desperate act of criminal activity.
The voters need to place the affects of banning or not banning on a set of scales. This isn't just a save lives measure cause there are aspects of American life that will be affected. Therefore any legit discussion involves all that would be involved. The people positively affected of gun ownership & people affected negatively. Looking at the facts, you'll see that the positively affected outweighs the negative.
The rights of 318 million Americans would be violated, cause of 500,000-1 million whom abuse their right. The former outweighs this here.
Gun ownership is undeniably a crime deterrent, criminals will be criminals, removing the innocence ability to use the most efficient means of defense will result in increase crime. This will not protect the 'general welfare' of the people.
The economic toll on the US economy that is already $19 trillion in debt would severely hurt our ability to get out of debt faster, our already unemployment problem would get much worse. And peoples' ability to provide for their loved ones being negatively affected would result in desperate measure, not in the best interest of the United States or the general welfare of the people.
The consequence of a government program to forcibly confiscate weapons from Americans would result in a vast defiance from the people. People would refuse to surrender their arms, as their historic counterparts had done in the past, & any attempt to put the people & the government into at odd in such a situation would, highly likely, result in the death of Americans both citizen & law enforcement in government. This is again, not in the best interest of the US government or the general welfare.
Rebuttal 1: Freedom and Law
The 1st point made by my opponent in this contention is the definition of “ban” and the resolution. This is the resolution as proposed by my opponent:
Resolved: The US Government should ban guns.
My definition of ban is yet to be challenged by my opponent, and I will stand by it.
“Confiscate and outlaw, while placing penalties on owning said product, (in this case, guns.)”
I never specify if this is a total gun ban or not, I use the blanket term guns and I do not specify the type of firearms that would be targeted, and I do not state “all guns” I simply stated “guns.” It would be illogical to think that I would propose an idea such as that given the examples used by both me and my opponent not being complete bans. Australia targeted semi-automatic guns, Britain banned handguns, and other countries that my opponent has brought up have not banned all guns anyway. Thus, if my opponent is truly wanting to debate a full gun ban, then he has not proved legitimate harms from passing the resolution since we both used partial bans in our points. In which case, this debate has devolved into meaningless dribble on both sides.
Next, the 2nd amendment is brought up. My opponent states that an English expert stated that the 2nd amendment is an individual one. However, as the said expert explains, the interpretation is purely linguistic and takes into account the exact meaning of the constitution. Next, he cites a YouTube video, under any evidence standard, YouTube videos do not provide information worthy of putting into a case. Remember, video on YouTube can easily be biased in favor of one’s ideology. Also, state constitutions are different based on whether a liberal or conservative majority is in government positions. In places like California, Iowa, and Maryland have no provisions even concerning guns, while certain states allow for the public to be protected from policy that aims to clean up crime (1). My opponent also claims that the newer precedents of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment are somehow more valid simply because they are newer. Remember, the fact that there is such debate over the 2nd amendment’s limits imply that there is grey area where the interpretation of the amendment is concerned. After all, the court has decided other amendments to be limited in some ways as well. For example, in Davis vs. Boheim, the court upheld that defamation of character had to be proved with 4 criteria, but still was a crime. The founding fathers could not have determined the influx of gun crime in the US and certainly would not know that superior gun technology would exist to the point that automatic and semi-automatic weapon fire would exist, given the weapon of choice in the past to be muskets and flint lock pistols.
Next, he attempts to attack my point about the fact that over a million children live in a household where a weapon is readily available. He brings up child negligence laws, which he claims that since the laws designed to prevent children becoming injured or killed and are still not enforced, neither would my ban. First, he conflates two different issues that are not in relation with each-other. There is no child negligence law federally that prevents where parents store the weapon if they have children, meaning that there is nothing to conflate to begin with. Also, I have defined the word “ban” with this in mind and mentioned raising penalties, which would deter the number of people who would break this law.
Rebuttal 2: Suicides
My opponent basically concedes to my suicide point by saying it is someone’s right to do so, and furthers this by claiming suicide to be a victimless crime. This is not the case, many people are effected by the decision to ends one’s life, including family members, friends etc. Not only this, but saving any life is inherently a benefit to everyone, as we affirm the right that people own to life. If suicide is to be legal anyway, it should be administered by a doctor, thus preventing trauma from other family members and friends.
Next, he claims that many criminals are scared off from other people owning weapons. He has yet to refute my Boston University example and simply scoffed when I showed the fact that the CDC is not able to show benefits of gun control. Also, regardless of what the executive branch’s opinion is in this matter, it should be mentioned that at the time, and possibly even now, the legislative branch, where actual law gets passed is split on the issue. Also, my opponent claims that the Australia model will not work in America due to different demographics and beliefs held between the two nations. However, the Australian party in charge of the legislative branch equivalent was conservative, many not favoring the NFA (3). My opponent seems to think that by enacting any gun ban, we would guarantee that public violence would spark. The fact that it did not in any other country, despite conservative notions and outrage, points in the opposite direction. My opponent states that Australia’s homicide rate did not lower, even though he never directly states why. I have offered stats to the contrary. His statistic claimed that other crimes not associated with guns increased. Yet, he has yet to link the ban with higher rates of other crime. Also, need I remind you that Australia had significantly lower crime rates as a result? I have already shown you the graph in last round and the fact that homicide and suicide were lowered significantly (4). Also, the fact that crime decrease in Australia despite many people owning guns means that we would still have a decrease in crime, and death as a result.
My opponent mentions the fact that there is no protection from tyranny. This is despite the fact that I have not advocated for a total ban on guns, meaning that people can still own some types of firearms, just not certain ones such as automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Also, assuming that the people of another country come and try to kill us, we would still have superior military forces, technology, and ability. The likeliness of anyone attacking us is slim at best to begin with, and I can assure you that people who have not been trained in combat scenarios will not even put up a fight against other country’s military, making this point non-unique, because in the event that my opponent proposes, there is little likeliness of survival for any civilian. The next example my opponent uses is the fact that gun control can be used to oppress people, using the example of slaves being oppressed by these laws from revolting. This is a straw-man fallacy, since the debate is about the general welfare of the people, and the fact that it “was” used to suppress people does not mean that the moment we pass gun control, the entire government starts oppressing its citizens.
Rebuttal 3: Economy
Again, the economy can be fixed, but the lives of the people is priceless. Since my opponent makes no argument against the welfare of the people framework, his argument does not stand. May it also be known that the manufacturing of all goods are being outsourced as we speak, meaning that in a few years, this will not even matter as other countries or robots manufacture the guns.
With the lives of the people at stake, and the obvious coming to light, one must vote in the affirmation. Good luck to my opponent as we approach the end of the debate.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.