Resolved: Gun Ban in the US

Thanks, Mlle. Onto my defense. Observations O1: My opponent says to post this late, so I will try to post it as late as possible. I will be very brief this round as I need to post this in late Sunday, and I am very busy at the moment. O2: My opponent needs to waive the 5th round, I am just reminding her for this. Framework It seems that my opponent did no contradictions of my framework, and didn’t even say anything about my framework, so I assume that Pro accepts the framework, and follows it. 2nd amendment The first argument I will be defending is the 2nd amendment. "Just because something is law, does not mean that it is always completely correct or ethical." I know that it might now be a good law, but I have shown what Socrates have said about a law, even a bad law is a law. That is what Socrates had said. So we should follow the law, because it is a law, but I will go into the point about if it is correct or ethical now, as I already shown that we should/must follow it. "The 2nd amendment may be a law but it is obvious that a lot of Americans are unhappy with it as we can see clearly from the charts in source labelled 15." That, certainly is not true. Americans love guns. Here is a chart for it [27]. "Preventing all Americans from owning guns." Favor Oppose Unsure % % % 6/16-19/16 9 90 - It is shown that 90% of Americans do not want to ban guns. 90% is a big number, and with 310 million guns around with Americans, we can conclude that most Americans love guns. So I have shown that Americans are happy with guns. “From the charts, we can see that each year, more and more people are dissatisfied and want stricter gun control in the US.” First of all, I did find the chart, but you are not supposed to make me find it. Actually, if you look at the chart of the stricter gun control chart, More strict fell by 23% then what it was supposed to be. Kept as now went up by 16%. Less strict went up by 9 percent. If anything, Americans now want gun controls to be less strict than before. And people are dissatisfied with guns mostly because of the terror attacks, and those things, and we can prevent them getting guns by getting rid of guns in the black market, etc. And also, they didn’t do this thing on all of the people in the U.S., only 100 people to make a percentage. 100 people are quite unreliable. Therefore, this source is unreliable. This argument is not refuted. Self-defense “The main problem right now about guns is not the risk of getting attacked by armed people. It is in fact, suicide. From my source labelled 5, it clearly shows that the rate of suicide in the US is increasing dramatically.” My opponent says that suicides are the main problem. First of all, how are suicides the main problem. They want to suicide, no one is forcing them. Also my opponent is making a bare assertion that suicides are the main problem, hence the voters should not buy this claim. Who cares if it is getting increased? It just means that more people want to suicide. “First, if guns were banned, there would be a less likely chance of the "robber" carrying a gun in the first place.” Yes, that is true, though there is the black market, and the robbers can buy guns illegally. However, citizens who follow the law will give their guns if there is a gun ban. That means only robbers will have guns when we ban guns. The reason we are banning guns are to prevent robbers from getting them, but that won’t help. “Second, if you find a burglar with a gun in your house, it's very unlikely as I mentioned in the previous round that you will have a firearm handy near you perfectly ready for defense.” Yes, it might be hard, but there were around 70,000 self-defense cases. That means there are still cases like this, so we shouldn’t ban guns, or else all of these cases of self-defense will not be there, and those people will get killed, or robbed. Gun Culture “From the graphs (source 15), it is clear that Americans in fact, do not "love guns".” This is false, as I shown in the self-defense argument. I did show a source that Americans love guns. Therefore my opponent’s assertion is wrong. “If we ban guns, it does not mean that every single firearm is literally banned. The police force, army and of course, appropriate hunters will still be allowed to use guns.” My opponent basically concedes that not every single firearm will be banned. That basically means that robbers will still have them. And my opponent says appropriate hunters will have guns. My opponent clearly makes a bare assertion. This argument is not refuted. Waste of time “That is another bare assertion. Yes there will always be people who break the law but most people don't.” First of all, that is not a bare assertion. Of course there will be some people who do not follow the rules. And there are over 300 million guns, I have already shown it in another source. I don’t get how this is an bare assertion. Yes, most people don’t. That’s the problem. Most robbers and criminals don’t follow the rules. The literal definition of criminal is, “involving illegal activity : relating to crime [28].” So by the definition of criminal, it is clearly shown that criminals do not follow rules, and engage in illegal activities. Because they don’t follow the rules as they are criminals, so they will have their guns. When most citizens follow the rules, making that most guns are to criminals, which makes citizens undefended. “Laws should be followed as you stated yourself in your first point. You have just contradicted yourself.” I don’t get how I contradicted myself. I said that criminals won’t follow the rules. Yes, and we should follow rules, but criminals don’t. I don’t see how I contradicted myself in that statement. This argument is hence unrefuted. Gun Crime “Our sources differ and as a result I am slightly confused. You are also uncertain as you say you are "not 100% sure". However, I am 100% certain that guns make higher suicide rates, at least in the US [5] which is what this debate is about.” Sorry, I said that wrong. First of all, we are not sure that it is because of guns, but logically, 99% of the time, as guns are the only thing that changed in that scenario, gun bans cause more crimes. My opponent says the thing about suicides again, but as I said, it is the person who suicides liberty. My opponent also rebuts nothing of my graph that I have shown, and the statistics that I have shown, only rebutting the thing I wrote wrong, and with that, the argument is still unrefuted. Vote for Con because of this argument. Economy “Most of the guns in the US aren't even bought by Americans [13][14] so I highly doubt it would result in such a dramatic and exaggerated event like you mentioned.” First of all, yes, Americans don’t buy all the guns, but even though they buy the guns, well it still helps the economy. Just because other people in other nations buy lots of guns in the US, doesn’t mean that the other countries gets the money of the economy, the US still gets money in the economy. My opponent also doesn’t rebut my argument about jobs, and just says that it is an “exaggerated event.” This is not true, as I have shown that the jobs are still there, and if we ban guns, then the companies will be banned also. My opponent also fails to refuted about the money to the economy, as I have shown above that my opponent’s assertion was wrong. Therefore, the argument is unrefuted. Conclusion I have clearly shown that all of my arguments in the debate are unrefuted, my opponent says I made bare assertions, when clearly I didn’t, and you can’t source every single thing you can write, and sometimes you just need to use your logic. In most of my arguments, my opponent just ticks out one or two wrong things, and misses the point of my argument, hence not refuting it. Pro doesn’t explain much of her rebuttals clearly, and she doesn’t finish her rebuttal, only makes a very light assertion. Therefore, as I clearly shown that my arguments are unrefuted, please vote for Con!!!! Thank you for mllemozart for this debate, it’s quite fun for right now. Sources [27] (http://www.pollingreport.com...) [28] (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) (Counting all of my sources, they are my 27th and 28th source, etc.) Thanks for mllemozart for this debate. Onto her last “round” of the debate!!!!