DDO Champions League Debate: Gun Ban

Observations OBV1: This debate is on the subject on a gun ban. Not gun control. The two are mutually exclusive and the effects, impacts and potential consequences as a result of them are incredibly different [1][2]. Therefore our opponent’s references to the failures of gun control in regards to increased crime, and having no positive effect of crime are largely irrelevant in negating our portion of the BOP. In a society with gun control there are ultimately still guns in existence and therefore it is extremely different to a society without any guns entirely. This debate is on a gun ban - the resolution is very clear in stating so. OBV2: My opponent does not provide an alternative framework. This means that voters ought to be automatically conceding to my framework. My opponent cannot present an alternative framework in the rebuttals round, meaning that he ought to concede to my framework. If he doesn’t concede the framework and attempts to refute it then you still ought to be presuming Pro on the framework due to the fact that there is no framework set up by my opponent. Gun Control Increases Crime I generally agree with my opponent here. This is why I specifically chose to debate a gun ban as opposed to gun control. As you will notice in my initial contention on the murder rate, you’ll notice that when observing countries with gun bans the result is very different compared to gun control. I acknowledge that gun control is mentioned as a part of our plan, however our BOP requires us to prove that guns should be banned, our opponent’s is to prove that guns shouldn’t be banned. This round is for initial argument which are used to advance side’s burden. By attacking gun control my opponent’s burden isn’t advanced at all. We argue that the outcome of the counterplan (ie. the gun ban) ought to be implemented even at the expense of having a few years of gun control due to the fact that we need to prove that a gun ban ought to be implemented in the US which will still be achieved (even at expense of some gun control required before reaching the inevitable outcome). Gun Control Doesn’t Deter Crime This, once again, can be refuted by the comments made above. Regardless, given that my opponent uses some logic to advance his burden I’ll make a quick rebuttal on the point. Firstly, this argument fails under the framework as all it is doing here is showing increasing crime rates. The individualistic framework weighs lives, which, in this debate is all that we should be considering here (as our opponents make NO attempt to dispute this with a counter-framework). Given that all our opponent’s show here is that crime will not be deterred, this argument is ultimately irrelevant as it makes no attempt to show lives being lost - only that crimes are being committed. Furthermore, even if my opponent’s argument was even remotely relevant to the framework it still creates a weak correlation between crime and gun control / gun bans. It assumes that gun control/bans are the reason for crime sometimes increasing. It fails to consider many factors. In regards to the UK which my opponent presents as an example, in the same year in the UK - labour was elected (causing large controversy), tobacco advertising at sporting events was banned, the British empire officially ended, Britain handed over their territory of Hong Kong back, etc. [3]. All of these decisions were deemed unpopular by many and resulted in attacks and crime increases as a result of them - guns are not exclusively the problem. My opponent and his source never manage to successfully prove that guns are the reason for this crime increase - it is merely assumed. The Right To Bear Arms Voters ought to dismiss this argument (at least the beginning of it) as it is completely irrelevant to the debate framework set up. There is no causal link between the right to bear arms and individual lives being lost or saved. For this reason voters ought to dismiss the beginning of this contention as irrelevant. My opponent speaks of necessity for guns in hunting, etc. This is largely irrelevant as the full resolution in R1 clearly states that we are banning the private ownership of firearms not publically funded or owned firearms. Guns will be allowed for hunting for food as this is often official and is therefore not private in all instances. My opponent then makes a more relevant argument which does have an impact upon the framework. This regards gun saving lives. My opponent begins by citing an out of date source from 21 years ago as to why guns are bad. This is an incredibly poor and deceptive usage of sources. We are talking about whether or not a gun ban will be implemented now. Murder rates, suicide rate, beliefs, government's, policies, comparisons, etc. have all changed since 1995. We should be analyzing data from 2015 onwards. Even data from 2014 is questionable due to the changes that have occurred since then. [4] My opponent’s next source is from 2014. This is two years out of date. My opponent is using information from 2 years ago. And whilst my opponent’s questionable data does suggest that there have been 1589 uses of guns for self defense it is important to note that there have been 1602 accidental shootings too (according my opponent’s own source). Which means if we are weighing this under the individualistic framework of lives, we can conclude that even if we accept my opponent’s sources, voters are still presuming Pro here. Vermont and Mexico In Vermont my opponent commits a similar logical fallacy to before. When looking at crime rates you can’t analyze one factor. You’ve got to consider poverty level, degree of urbanisation, population, employment levels, tourism, jobs availability, etc. If this debate were about whether or not tourism should be banned my opponent could have made a the same argument and said that we should look at Vermont as an example due to its low crime rates. This is the problem. My opponent could have drawn the possibilities from a hat and found some way to connect it to low crime and Vermont. Unless my opponent is able to prove that the reason for crime being so low is because of the guns laws then voters should view this argument as invalid. The same response as above applies to Mexico, in fact crime rates in Mexico are directly linked with and are almost always connoted with the drug crisis in Mexico [5][6]. My opponent just shows that Mexico has strict gun laws and then shows that they have high crime and instantly assumes that they are interconnected in some way. This is illogical logic as I have proven above. On the other hand, I provide objective reasoning alongside sources to prove that Mexico’s drug crisis is likely to be the problem of such high crime rates. Conclusion Most of my opponent’s arguments are completely irrelevant to the debate framework and since they provide no alternative framework in their arguments voters must assume my framework as the correct framework for this debate. Therefore under this premise most of my opponent’s arguments are negated by default. I have also (unnecessarily) refuted them just to reinforce the fact that my opponent’s burden is not fulfilled; that the resolution is affirmed and that voter’s ought to be presuming Pro at this point in the debate. With that I hand it back over to Con. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.technologyreview.com... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.unfpa.org... [5] https://nacla.org... [6] https://www.ncjrs.gov...