The US government should ban guns

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. Conclusion 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. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...)