The US government should ban guns

Rebuttal 1: Freedom and Law The 1st point made by my opponent in this contention is the definition of “ban” and the resolution. This is the resolution as proposed by my opponent: Resolved: The US Government should ban guns. My definition of ban is yet to be challenged by my opponent, and I will stand by it. “Confiscate and outlaw, while placing penalties on owning said product, (in this case, guns.)” I never specify if this is a total gun ban or not, I use the blanket term guns and I do not specify the type of firearms that would be targeted, and I do not state “all guns” I simply stated “guns.” It would be illogical to think that I would propose an idea such as that given the examples used by both me and my opponent not being complete bans. Australia targeted semi-automatic guns, Britain banned handguns, and other countries that my opponent has brought up have not banned all guns anyway. Thus, if my opponent is truly wanting to debate a full gun ban, then he has not proved legitimate harms from passing the resolution since we both used partial bans in our points. In which case, this debate has devolved into meaningless dribble on both sides. Next, the 2nd amendment is brought up. My opponent states that an English expert stated that the 2nd amendment is an individual one. However, as the said expert explains, the interpretation is purely linguistic and takes into account the exact meaning of the constitution. Next, he cites a YouTube video, under any evidence standard, YouTube videos do not provide information worthy of putting into a case. Remember, video on YouTube can easily be biased in favor of one’s ideology. Also, state constitutions are different based on whether a liberal or conservative majority is in government positions. In places like California, Iowa, and Maryland have no provisions even concerning guns, while certain states allow for the public to be protected from policy that aims to clean up crime (1). My opponent also claims that the newer precedents of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment are somehow more valid simply because they are newer. Remember, the fact that there is such debate over the 2nd amendment’s limits imply that there is grey area where the interpretation of the amendment is concerned. After all, the court has decided other amendments to be limited in some ways as well. For example, in Davis vs. Boheim, the court upheld that defamation of character had to be proved with 4 criteria, but still was a crime. The founding fathers could not have determined the influx of gun crime in the US and certainly would not know that superior gun technology would exist to the point that automatic and semi-automatic weapon fire would exist, given the weapon of choice in the past to be muskets and flint lock pistols. Next, he attempts to attack my point about the fact that over a million children live in a household where a weapon is readily available. He brings up child negligence laws, which he claims that since the laws designed to prevent children becoming injured or killed and are still not enforced, neither would my ban. First, he conflates two different issues that are not in relation with each-other. There is no child negligence law federally that prevents where parents store the weapon if they have children, meaning that there is nothing to conflate to begin with. Also, I have defined the word “ban” with this in mind and mentioned raising penalties, which would deter the number of people who would break this law. Rebuttal 2: Suicides My opponent basically concedes to my suicide point by saying it is someone’s right to do so, and furthers this by claiming suicide to be a victimless crime. This is not the case, many people are effected by the decision to ends one’s life, including family members, friends etc. Not only this, but saving any life is inherently a benefit to everyone, as we affirm the right that people own to life. If suicide is to be legal anyway, it should be administered by a doctor, thus preventing trauma from other family members and friends. Next, he claims that many criminals are scared off from other people owning weapons. He has yet to refute my Boston University example and simply scoffed when I showed the fact that the CDC is not able to show benefits of gun control. Also, regardless of what the executive branch’s opinion is in this matter, it should be mentioned that at the time, and possibly even now, the legislative branch, where actual law gets passed is split on the issue. Also, my opponent claims that the Australia model will not work in America due to different demographics and beliefs held between the two nations. However, the Australian party in charge of the legislative branch equivalent was conservative, many not favoring the NFA (3). My opponent seems to think that by enacting any gun ban, we would guarantee that public violence would spark. The fact that it did not in any other country, despite conservative notions and outrage, points in the opposite direction. My opponent states that Australia’s homicide rate did not lower, even though he never directly states why. I have offered stats to the contrary. His statistic claimed that other crimes not associated with guns increased. Yet, he has yet to link the ban with higher rates of other crime. Also, need I remind you that Australia had significantly lower crime rates as a result? I have already shown you the graph in last round and the fact that homicide and suicide were lowered significantly (4). Also, the fact that crime decrease in Australia despite many people owning guns means that we would still have a decrease in crime, and death as a result. My opponent mentions the fact that there is no protection from tyranny. This is despite the fact that I have not advocated for a total ban on guns, meaning that people can still own some types of firearms, just not certain ones such as automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Also, assuming that the people of another country come and try to kill us, we would still have superior military forces, technology, and ability. The likeliness of anyone attacking us is slim at best to begin with, and I can assure you that people who have not been trained in combat scenarios will not even put up a fight against other country’s military, making this point non-unique, because in the event that my opponent proposes, there is little likeliness of survival for any civilian. The next example my opponent uses is the fact that gun control can be used to oppress people, using the example of slaves being oppressed by these laws from revolting. This is a straw-man fallacy, since the debate is about the general welfare of the people, and the fact that it “was” used to suppress people does not mean that the moment we pass gun control, the entire government starts oppressing its citizens. Rebuttal 3: Economy Again, the economy can be fixed, but the lives of the people is priceless. Since my opponent makes no argument against the welfare of the people framework, his argument does not stand. May it also be known that the manufacturing of all goods are being outsourced as we speak, meaning that in a few years, this will not even matter as other countries or robots manufacture the guns. Conclusion With the lives of the people at stake, and the obvious coming to light, one must vote in the affirmation. Good luck to my opponent as we approach the end of the debate. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...)