3rd DDO Census Debate: Gun Ban

Thanks for a great debate Bsh! Observations OBV 1: Con concedes the metaethical framework and the normative ethics framework. This means that moral realism ought to be considered as true and individualism ought to be viewed upon as the onset at which this debate should be looked at. I said that the individualist framework works in my favor. He has failed to contest with my point and therefore you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone since under the individualistic framework murder is wrong and guns cause murder. OBV 2: I will not be arguing or presenting new arguments in the final round. My opponent should do the same and not present any new arguments or new points that cannot be addressed in this round. Confiscation Con misunderstands the point that I was making. Since under the individualistic framework (that my opponent has conceded) we are weighing lives as the most important thing this argument ought to be ignored based on the fact that this debate should be about lives lost not theft. If I am able to prove that a gun ban will save lives then you ought to presume pro. Theft is considered to be a less significant factor under the framework. If a gun ban prevents deaths and increases theft then you still ought to vote Pro due to the fact that the individualistic framework enforces the fact that the individuals lives should be considered as the most important thing. I’ve fulfilled my burden of answering the “should” element of this debate which is all I am required to do as the resolution clearly states. The Plan A. I did agree to an extent. B. We have a misunderstanding here. This debate isn’t about feasibility. It is about weighing the consequences up. The word “should” in the full resolution proves that. The purpose of my plan was to show that there would be mitigated consequences in terms of retaliation and protest. Government approval has nothing to do with desirability (synonym for should as stated in the definition). I can desire a gun ban over the period of 100 years without having to look at feasibility. It is a desire that I want to happen because I feel that if it is done then the positives will outweigh the negatives hence why I find it desirable. Desirability does not equate to feasibility. C. This is conceded. Murder Rate A1 - Con fails to understand that he has conceded to an individualistic framework and as a result he virtually concedes. It is important to note that I never said that regulation was bad, I just said a gun ban is more effective. He concedes that there are still gun deaths with restriction. There may be less but there are still deaths. Under all societies with complete gun bans the gun deaths are at 0. Since the individualistic framework states that deaths should be weighed in numbers so the more deaths, the worse, this means that you ought to presume pro. Con acknowledges that gun restrictions still cause some deaths and that gun bans result in lower deaths than places with gun restriction, ie. no deaths. This alone gives you enough reason to vote pro. A2 - It didn’t need addressing. You are comparing homicides to gun ownership rates. What you aren’t doing is comparing it to places with gun bans. Since no comparisons of places with guns bans are made this evidently bears no weight upon the resolution. A3 - Con refers to bans but what he means is general policies and programs that attempt to reduce firearm violence. This includes restriction. It is not specific to bans. Ergo, it has no impact or place in this debate. In regards to Huemer, I cited Huemer in regards to moral realism. Just because I cite one figure, that does not mean that I agree with all of their ideologies. Again, Huemer in that quote references to gun control, not a gun ban. B. I’m not saying that we are going to completely eradicate all the belief that people have in guns. Just like even in the current system there are still people that believe that guns are bad and that there should be a gun ban. The gun ban will obviously cause some anger, no matter how long we stretch the ban over. The ban will come into action after 20 years and after a further generation (roughly 25 years) the support of guns will most likely be gone. I never said that it would be a quick and easy process but in the long term my plan will ultimately work. The borders are fine and even if you subjectively feel that they aren’t fine the US plans to increase border security over a long period of time [1]. C. Source 9 referenced to reduction in gun quantity in the UK overall. Since it showed that there are significantly less guns in the UK (virtually none) this means that the gun ban will ultimately eliminate or come close to eliminating a black market. His analysis of source 10 is massively subjective. He believes that it is bias, he believes that banning all guns won’t have the same effect, he believes that 2 year set data is insufficient - this is all subjective and no sources were used. He claims that I dropped gang violence but fails to acknowledge that they are interconnected. If I prove that there will be an extremely small black market then there is no reason to worry about gun related gang violence because the gun supply will be limited and consequently lower. D. The use of snipers on property is because there was a mass protest in which people in the protest would have possibly acted violently and used guns [2]. In a large protest in a country where guns are able to be privately obtained the use of soldiers and snipers is sometimes necessary to save more lives (individualism). My opponent also makes the claim that communities are being disrupted by this. This is faulty logic for a number of reasons. Sometimes “disruption” is necessary in order to save lives (which should be considered more important under the normative ethics based framework). He uses the word communities but only sources 1 instance of this happening. I didn’t drop right wing terrors. It is a long term operation and as I said, the police and militia will be equipped to handle this because they will have guns. E. My data is the accurate data. Studies can estimate that there may be more instances but the occasions that it is reported are the more accurate ones since we actually have a definitive number. Estimations are not accurate. Con’s source 7 (the only source he uses in this sub point) is out of date. 3 years out of date to be precise [3]. Also, CDC is not a credible source when it comes to gun research [4]. F. It COULD be because of a flaw in the system but this is debateable. There are many factors involved as the source addressed. The statistics may be slightly higher due to inequality but the reality is that the source specifically mentioned that the system was only one of many factors that contribute towards the statistics. It is specific to crime which includes gun crime. Yes it does not directly address gun crime but it shows that black people are more likely to commit crime in general which means that it includes gun crime. Gun crime comes under the heading of crime. This is why it isn’t unexpected that black people do commit more gun crimes in the US than white people as I originally claimed [5]. The racial profiling in this instance is justified and is necessary in order to fulfill the framework. G. In the plan he makes the assumption that the public will be informed. The public will only be informed on the current courses of action (ie. gun restrictions), not the grand scheme (gun bans). Polls conclusively prove that the majority of Americans support gun control. Therefore, the gun control will not act or been viewed as a negative act by the majority of people. The process of taking away guns will be a long operation as I have repeatedly said. I would not expect 100% compliance but those found with guns will be violating the law and will be prosecuted if found. In the long term this will almost certainly reduce guns significantly. Even if most keep their guns originally there will be massive restrictions on what they can and can’t do. If they use their gun for self defense then they will still be prosecuted for having a gun on them. If they are found with the gun then they will be prosecuted, if they accidentally shoot a family member of a friend then they will still be prosecuted and largely fined. The consequences will create restriction on what they can and can’t do and in the long term it will be extremely difficult to obtain ammunition and it is unlikely that they will be able to get it through a black market for reasons stated previously. Even if there was a black market it is extremely unlikely that everybody will be able to get guns and ammunition at a sustainable rate that will work in the long term. He must prove this in order for this argument to be accepted as valid. Accidents Con cannot make a counter plan now. This is committing the fallacy that he brought up earlier. He is shifting the goalposts. I set out a clear plan and stuck to it throughout the debate so I set clear goalposts. He is shifting them and adding modifications as he goes along. This is a fallacy that he commits and it is one that he displayed distaste towards. Since Con provided no opening arguments this meant that I was proposing a change in the status quo and he had to keep to it. If he wanted to make modifications then he would have something to prove and as such this means that he would have part of the burden of proof however by not making arguments or anything to prove this, it means that I am proposing change in the status quo, Con is defending it. This is a large mistake on his behalf and should be heavily considered. Thanks Bsh for the debate and thanks FortisAnimi for advising, I know that timing has been a problem. The effort is appreciated. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro! Sources [1] http://1.usa.gov... [2] http://abcn.ws... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://politi.co... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly...