3rd DDO Census Debate: Gun Ban

Thanks, Famous.OVERVIEWPro misunderstands my point re: confiscation. Pro drops that theft is, a priori, a bad thing to do and that bans equate to theft. Since theft is normally wrong, if Pro cannot offer compelling evidence for the morality of a ban, then we should default Con. It also means Pro has a greater BOP, because he must to overcome the hurdle of proving theft to be acceptable. Pro drops this presumption argument. Since any arguments against these (or any other) drops would be new in the final speech, Pro should not be allowed to respond.THE PLANA. Pro agrees.B. Pro claims my points here are largely opinion. In fact, (3) was purely factual. A 20 year program would span 3-5 Presidencies, and the more people that sit in the Oval Office, the greater probability that at least 1 of them will object to restrictive gun policies, esp. when a large slice of the electorate is heavily pro-gun. Pro effectively drops (3); extend it. (1) and (2) are obviously true, in that the NRA opposes even commonsense regulations and in that the political environment is hyper-partisan. Pro cannot assume that moving slowly will automatically lull people into a sense of security. Every single regulation will be opposed. Every single regulation will be used to inflame the right-wing. And, with every single successfully passed regulation, the right will become more panicked, inflamed, desperate, and angry. C. In order to save space, I will agree with protecting life as the weighing mechanism for the round. Pro agrees to this in R3 and notes that this is his ultimate goal in his R2, second syllogism. Consequently, this debate will hinge on whichever side saves the most life, after factoring in the presumption.PRO's CASEMurder RateA1. Pro is called on by the resolution to argue for a ban of private gun ownership. Not a ban of some private gun ownership, but a ban on private ownership itself. This means that if all guns should be banned except hunting rifles owned by licensed and skilled hunters, you would still vote Con. Pro can only argue for regulation as a transitional phase, not as the end result. Insofar as places like Austria, Norway, Iceland, Greece, Australia, and (yes) France allow the private ownership of some guns in some cases, they are Con ground. To clarify, licenses which allow hunters and shooters to privately own guns still allow private ownership. Pro basically attempts to take out my examples by saying "hey, these places have regulation." Okay, so what? If Iceland can have virtually zero gun deaths, if Australia, Austria, Germany, etc. can have low gun deaths, without actually banning guns, why not regulate as an alternative to banning? Indeed, balancing the right to safety (smart regulation) with the right to property (ownership of guns) may be productive. If regulations are so effective, as Pro claims, why go to a ban, and so heavily violate the right to property? A2. Pro drops my evidence showing that, globally, homicides per capita and gun ownership rates per capita don't correlate; this is a good proxy for this whole debate, since the purpose of a ban is to reduce ownership rates to reduce homicide rates. Pro also drops that his evidence is all correlational, and so cannot prove causation. Extend these points. Pro agrees that culture is part of the cause; just because it worked in those places that did implement guns bans does not mean it will work here. That is a blatant correlation/causation confusion. In addition, the likelihood of right wing backlash in this country as opposed to say, in Japan, may cause a ban to backfire here. A3. In addition to the correlative analysis, I can cite a meta-analysis of 47 other studies which found that weapons bans have an effect size of -.194, compared to alternative methods, many of which had effect sizes ranging from -.233 to -.352. The study described the former as "at best, marginal." In other words, weapons bans have little impact, if any, on reducing gun violence. [1] Also, Huemer, who Pro cites also, states: "the most rigorous and comprehensive study in the gun control literature...upon the adoption of shall-issue laws, murder rates declined immediately by about 8 percent...with declines continuing in subsequent years." [10] This study surveyed data over a 15 year period.B. 20 years--not even a generation--is not enough time to get rid of the deep-seated gun culture in the U.S. The suggestion that it is is preposterous; that is like saying that you can get rid of racist culture in 20 years (that culture still is not even gone). You cannot, in 2 decades, erase what has permeated society through a century. Moreover, the notion that U.S. borders are under control is ridiculous. [2, 3] The "'DHS reports that the southwest border continues to be vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity, including the smuggling of humans and illegal narcotics.'...It is estimated that for every person caught...two more get by." [4] We can thus extend both of the reasons the UK should not be used as an analog for the U.S. C. I searched his source 9 (CTRL+F for "sale," "traffic," "black," and "market") and got no results, so I can only conclude it isn't relevant there. His source 10 is from a 2 year data set, which is hardly conclusive (my France data goes back to 2003), and the report was released during the same administration that it was analyzing, leaving great potential for bias. And, even if the assault weapons ban did not fuel the black market, it is unlikely that banning all guns would have the same effect, since rifles and handguns are far more popular and in-demand. Pro drops my gang evidence. Extend it.D. My opponents belief that militia-police violence won't spill out into communities is patently ridiculous. These militias operate in-and-around communities, and their activities actively disrupt those communities, [5] even setting up snipers on public interstates. [6] In some cases, assaults on police have already killed bystanders. [12] Pro also drops that right-wing terror caused more deaths than al-Qaeda linked terror in the U.S. If war between the militias and the government breaks out, it is more than likely innocent people will be caught in the crossfire. And, I also reject the idea that we can somehow not count the deaths of police and servicemen in our calculations--should we not seek to minimize all deaths? They are already America's top cop-killers. [11] Pro finally drops the point that gun bans will fuel the rise of right-wing terror.E. Pro misrepresents the data. His article notes that .16-3.2% of defensive gun uses are reported to police; this is not the number of total, successful defensive uses; due to failure to report, the numbers are likely higher. In fact, "most all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals." [7] Also, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns...have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies." [7] Regarding Pro's source 13, I cannot access it to assess its credibility. Prefer accessible evidence to inaccessible evidence. Pro drops that the Hobson's choice is a deterrent against crime. So, even if you don't buy that guns don't effectively stop crimes in progress, their utility should also be measured in terms of crimes they deter occurring in the first place. F. All Pro's source does is explain that blacks are more likely to be arrested for crimes, which could be be due to racist police forces and overpolicing of black communities. His own source writes: "Many of the factors contributing to this inequality can be attributed to the system instead of to different behavior between blacks and whites." None of Pro's data is specific to gun crimes, either. Gun bans, because they prohibit people from owning guns, could lead to stop-and-frisk-like bias [8] in policing, where police are more likely to search black people for illicit guns than for white, leading to an intensification of oppression against black people. Plus, for every year of prison served, one's lifespan decreases 2 years. [13] G. Pro continues to assume that people will magically accept a ban (and the regulations preceding it) just because it is gradual. Seeing your rights slip away slowly can be terrifying, and there is no good reason to believe--at least with the minimal analysis Pro has invested in this--that resistance will be small, especially given the importance of guns to many people in America. "It is safe to assume that most law-abiding gun owners would not comply with a firearms ban. That is verified by actual behavior...In Boston and Cleveland, the rate of compliance is estimated at 1%. Out of the 100,000 to 300,000 assault rifles estimated to be in private hands in New Jersey, 947 were registered, an additional 888 rendered inoperable, and four turned over to authorities. In California, nearly 90% of the approximately 300,000 assault weapon owners did not register their weapons." [9]AccidentsPro's says his arguments show that accidents happen in that status quo. Currently, there are no safety features on guns; I am proposing that we mandate such safety features. All the data suggest that this would massively reduce accidental deaths. Pro dropped that "accidental deaths are only a small part of the total gun issue," and with these safety features added, they will be much smaller still. SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...9 - Source 9, R210 - http://tinyurl.com...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://tinyurl.com...13 - http://tinyurl.com...Thank you. Thus, I negate.