The U.S should ban guns

Since we are both going to be giving constructive arguments, I think that it would be best that the BoP would be shared - I think that's the most logical conclusion. As for burdens, since the resolution says the word 'should' and not 'can and should', I only have to argue what there is a moral or ethical obligation to do - not if there is an actual way to do so (see: Moti Mizrahi in 2009 where he talks about a moral obligation to do something not meaning that you can do something, just that you should). Before I begin, we need to deeply analyse the question of "why do we have guns in the modern era?" -- as this is what my case will be attacking (for if there is no reason to have guns, a ban would be a logical consequence of thought!).I believe that Adam Hall had said it best in The Quiller Memorandum: A gun is psychologically a penis-substitute and a symbol of power: the age-range of toy-shop clientele begins at about six or seven, rises sharply just before puberty and declines soon after the discovery of the phallus and its promise of power. From then on, guns are for kids and for the effete freaks and misfits who must seek psycho-orgasmic relief by shooting ... Jacques Lacan has done an enormous volume of work on the idea of the symbollic and the fantasy in his study of psychoanalysis of numerous patients. He finds that the phallus is a signifier of a lack of something, as well as a signifier of the difference of the sexes. (Quick note here, he talks of the phallus, not the penis; there is a difference between the organ and its symbolic representation within the analysable patient ... Lacan says 'phallus' for the symbolic representation, whereas Adam Hall had said 'penis' for both the organ and the symbolic representation -- this is just a difference of notation, I will be using Lacan's for this debate).So far, we have seen that the gun exists as a rudimentary replacement for the male phallus in the current culture of 'gun culture' within the US - any hopes of banning guns are quickly dismissed, for a ban on guns would be the castration of the male's obsession with his phallus. This fear of castration is actually stemmed from a fear of the father [1] and his authority over the son - the 'castration complex', as Lacan calls it, is the acceptance of the father's authority and the authority of the Symbolic Order (as opposed to the Real or Imaginary Orders).Thus, my sole contention - guns are patriarchal tools meant to oppress the child, and are used to suppress the Oedipal Complex of the son as a means of social repression.Subpoint A. PatriarchyIt is quite simple to see that the guns are a symptom of the patriarchy. Look above at my note on the Lacanian idea of the Castration Complex, where this fear is actually stemmed from the fear of the Father and his power over the Symbolic Order. Patriarchy is defined simply as a form of community wherein the father is the head of power [2], so we can see that this fear further entrenches the familial and societal Father.And, the impacts can be disastorous if we let the patriarchy go free -- massive, large-scale war [3], domestic violence [4], a crippling of democracy [4], and so on and so on (cue Slavoj wiping his nose).Subpoint B. Suppression of Oedipus(If you do not know the story of Oedipus, read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, it is useful) If the child is forced to submit to society, it enters into the Nuclear Family, a perfect family – society’s grand design for conformity and control – if everyone is the perfect family then no one will question society at all and the hierarchies and exploitation can continue [5]. This is the exploitation of the child into the future by the Father and the Symbolic Order - it is no different than the patriarchy's violence on the child, nor is it different than slavery, nor is it different than class warfare - the only difference is that it occurs within the family's house. When the state uses excuses such as Oedipus to stop the rebellion – this leads the child to desire their own repression, fascism – they question the hierarchies of society and the state punishes the child by making them feel like they hate their parents and want to rebel – the child will desire their own repression by wanting the hierarchies of society to control them so that they do not seem like they are hurting their parents – we must not let this exploitation happen [5]. Let us ban guns and take the power from the Father to take away his exploitation of the Child through the excuse of Oedipus. Without doing so, we literally put into place a hierarchy that is the same as slavery - where the only difference, again, is where it is located: within the family's house. Rebuttals: I don't have enough time to give all rebuttals in this round (nor enough space), so I reserve the right to continue to give rebuttals and give some defense in the next round.I will only be attacking my opponent's third (?) contention, where he talks about the economic harms that are shown from banning guns. Looking at what he said is that there is a $33 billion loss and a 220,000 job loss when we ban guns. Maybe, I do not know if that is the full picture, but what I do know is that clinging to hopes of macroeconomic policy is a fruitless and oppressive act. Berik and Rodgers, in 2008 in Social Justice and Gender Equality: Rethinking Development Strategies and Macroeconomic Policies write that macroeconomic policies are far from gender neutral; they have empirically been proven to unequally burden women into submission of the patriarchy. Even if this is true, don't give my opponent access to this point - even if there is some $33 billion loss, the loss is the only way that we can attempt to try to revitalise gender communications and have a fair and equal society! His $33 billion loss is not as big of an impact as the patriarchy, so don't even evaluate it at the end of the round.[1]. https://www.cla.purdue.edu...[2]. http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]. Warren and Cady, 1994, Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections[4]. Ishkanian, 2007, En-gendering Civil Society and Democracy-Building: The Anti-Domestic Violence Campaign in Armenia, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, Volume 14, Number 4, Winter 2007[5]. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, 1972, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia