March Beginners Tournament : The United States should place a ban on all semi-automatic weapons"

Framework My opponent’s framework is inconsistent with the resolution. His framework basically says that if an action is against the rules put in place, it is immoral. I reject this framework for two reasons. First, his explanation ambiguously uses the word ‘rules’, allowing him to shift the goalposts (no true scotsman fallacy), if I attempt to refute this framework. Second, I’m not sure what the ‘rules’ would have to do with the debate anyways, since this debate is about what the rules (laws) should be, not about what they are. My framework, on the other hand, just directly compares the weight of the pros and cons in order to determine whether the resolution is affirmed or negated. Therefore, my framework is preferable over my opponent’s. Rebuttals 1) Homicide increase First off, the author of the article (the one that estimates the number of AR-15’s in the US), admits that there could be a huge margin of error in the estimates. Also, the article is mostly about the implications of a government buyback for guns, something my opponent has not mentioned. My opponent’s first source also recognizes that “In one year, at least 30,000 guns were “lost” out of gun dealers inventories”. What does that mean? Those 30,000 guns could have been sold illegally, further strengthening the point that most gun crimes involve guns which have been illegally obtained. 2) Illegal Gun Modifications Here my opponent’s point seems to be, that since people feel the need to modify their guns, it means that the original gun itself is useless. This is misleading, because we cannot know whether or not the original gun itself would have been just useful in self-defense cases. My opponent then partially quotes a line from his source that says people use gun modifications “To make it easier to kill people.”, but let’s take a look at the context. “Only the defendant can testify why he or she made those modifications. An argument will ensue between attorneys with the judge as referee. If the judge is sympathetic to the prosecution (most are, being former prosecutors themselves), the objection will be overruled and the examiner allowed to opine why those modifications may have been made. The questions might go something like this:” The last part: “The questions might go something like this:”, implies that the quotation is placed in completely hypothetical context, rendering that point invalid. Pro’s argument both lacks evidence for his claim (or the claim he is implicitly making) - that a significant portion of semi-automatic gun owners illegally modify their weapons, and fails to make a proper link to the resolution. He does not explain what this has to do with banning semi-automatic weapons. Rather, he somehow comes to the conclusion that they should be banned on the false premise that modifications made on them somehow proves their uselessness. 3) The “Outdated” Second Amendment So my opponent starts off this argument by committing an ad populum fallacy. Even if what he claims is true (that 80% of people believe semi-autos should be restricted [*restricted - not banned]), it doesn’t make the decision any more “right”. If the majority of democrats believe Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for president, does that make her any better a candidate than she was before the majority supported her? My opponent’s argument here is pure fallacy, and is therefore, invalid. Next, my opponent basically argues that the AWB was ineffective because it did not do enough. He makes several claims, such as semi-automatic handguns being used to create more crime, and that the ban was basically “arming the criminals themselves by allowing them to purchase such weapons legally”. The problem with my opponent's arguments, is that he is assuming that a complete ban on semi-automatic would have been the better decision. So basically, be assumed the conclusion in his premise, making this argument another fallacy. My point is, that just doing more of the same does not solve the issues. As I mentioned in my previous arguments, the issue with gun crime is not as straightforward, as if simply banning certain guns would solve crimes. Later on, though, he claims that the ban did play a significant role in reducing crime (?). This is not only a bare assertion, but it also contradicts his previous claim that the ban was “arming criminals”. 4) Self-Defense My opponent’s argument here seems to use one incident to justify a ban on semi-automatic weapons. It’s an anecdotal fallacy. Furthermore, were the guns purchased legally or illegally? This is a question that is hardly ever answered when propositions are made to ban guns. As I mentioned in my arguments, only 3-11% of gun crimes happen with legally purchased guns. [1] Lastly, he mentions that pump-action, or single-shot pistols would be enough for self-defense. If this was the case, semi-automatic pistols would not be so popular for this purpose, nor would they be ranked as one of the best weapons for self-defense. [2]. He also mentions that people should receive training to improve accuracy when using the pump-action or single-shot weapons for self-defense. Would this training be mandatory? What if the person is very busy and does not have time for this training? When there really is a crime being committed in one’s house, sometimes not even the highest level of training can overcome the feelings of panic and fear, so people need to rely on something else other than their accuracy for their self-defense, and that comes from semi-automatic weapons. Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...