3rd DDO Census Debate: Gun Ban

Thanks to Famous and Proph for the debate, and to DK for hosting!OVERVIEWIn R3, Pro flat out misunderstood my confiscation argument. Then, he talked about how, because things would be gradual, the confiscation wouldn't be problematic. Now, Pro is saying that because of his framework, confiscation doesn't matter. This a new argument against a point that he was substantively unresponsive to earlier.But, even if you buy that Pro can make his attack, he is still wrong. The purpose of a presumption argument is to give the judge a way to resolve the debate if other impacts are too close or muddled to call. Notice, in R2, I wrote: "Therefore, you should presume Con, because if all else is equal, we should still reject theft." In other words, you should vote Con if neither side can show that they save more lives, because theft is still an a priori wrong.In his OB1, Pro says that "you ought to vote Pro...since under the individualistic framework murder is wrong and guns cause murder." This is not quite right; Pro must first show that gun bans = less murder.THE PLANPro's reply to point B is entirely new. My attacks on his plan never changed, but Pro never mentioned feasibility once before. All of his responses here should be ignored, and my remarks should be extended. But, even if you don't buy that, Pro's feasibility argument only refutes my 3rd point, not points 1 and 2, which are that his plan will "(1) give the right-wing years to recruit and fear-monger, (2) be met with increasingly frustrated and violent resistance." These avoid his objections as they aren't about the ability to implement, but rather the likely effects of implementation.PRO's CASEMurder RatesA1. Pro says that all countries with gun bans have 0 gun deaths. In round two, Pro says, "In the United Kingdom they have a complete gun ban for citizens." If you take a look at his chart, you will notice that they UK does have gun deaths. So, this is just totally false. Moreover, Pro fails to grasp that gun deaths are always going to occur, given that gun will always exist in the black market. But, ultimately, Pro drops the main thrust of my A1 argument--Pro attempts to dismiss all my counterexamples because they have regulations, and Pro doesn't succeed in doing so.A2. Pro says that this data is irrelevant because it doesn't specifically pertain to gun bans. (1) This is a new argument against a point Pro admits he dropped, so you should ignore Pro's attack and extend my remarks. Secondly, even if you don't buy that, Pro fails to rebut my comment that: "this is a good proxy for this whole debate, since the purpose of a ban is to reduce ownership rates to reduce homicide rates." Pro calls it irrelevant, while simultaneously ignoring the analysis I gave to explain why it is relevant. And, again, Pro dropped last round that all of his data is correlational--it cannot show causality. Pro also agreed last round that culture could have explanatory value in understanding why places with bans may also have low homicide rates.A3. Pro says that I refer to general policies, not specifically. That is just false. In my Source 1 from last round, look at table 2 on page 233, and you will see that the data there is specifically about bans; the whole paper is about reducing gun violence and it examines various ways to do that. Pro blatantly misrepresents my evidence. Prefer my study because it relies on 47 other studies, which expand its sample size, and because it is a study as opposed to Pro's mere observation. As for Huemer, Pro again misunderstands the evidence. "Shall-issue" laws are laws that make it easier, not harder, to get guns; so, obviously, bans (which make getting guns harder) are counterproductive. The study Huemer references is one that surveyed 3,000+ counties over 15 years.B. Pro simply does not understand the depth of the U.S. gun culture--to believe that after 20 years "the support of guns will most likely be gone" is absurd, and flies in the face of all of the evidence, namely, the growing right-wing backlash, the refusal of people to cooperate with gun control or ban efforts in other parts of the country, the power of the NRA, and the many voters who vote gun-toting nutcases into office. As for the issue on borders, Pro's reply is basically, "it is my opinion that the borders are secure," which is an incredible statement, after I cited evidence from Homeland Security that strongly indicates it isn't, and after I pointed out that for every 1 person crossing, 2 people don't get caught. Re: Pro's argument about the US increasing border security in the future: (1) we cannot even be sure this is actually going to happen and (2) we have no idea how effective it will be. People have been trying to secure the border for years [http://tinyurl.com...]. Pro saying (without bothering to develop the point) that the US is planning on fixing it, is not an inspiring comeback. Ultimately, this point (B) was about showing that the UK was not a good point of comparison for the US, since, as it's surrounded by water, it is easier for the UK to control its borders. And, the UK lacks our gun culture. C. Pro says his Source 9 shows that the UK's ban eliminated the black market, but, as I just noted, the UK is surrounded by water which helps with border control, while the US has extremely porous borders that would allow guns to flood in from Mexico in the event of a US gun ban. France is a better comparison because it has land borders, like the US. Pro then says that you should not accept my 3 arguments against his study because I did not use sources. Why are sources always necessary--is good, old fashioned logic so out of date? It is logical that 2 years (esp. compared to 13 years with my France data) is not a sufficient time span to draw definitive conclusions. It is logical that Clinton's administration would release a report favorable to Clinton's policies. It is logical that, because handguns and rifles are more popular than assault weapons, that banning the former would create greater demand on the black market than banning the latter. Therefore, if you buy that banning all privately held guns would support a black market, you must also buy that banning guns would fuel gangs, since Pro dropped that earlier.D. Pro misunderstands this evidence as well. It was not the police who had snipers; it was the right-wing militants who had snipers. Pro then critiques me for only citing 1 example (I cited 2), but I only needed an example to illustrate a broader point: if the right-wing militias get into pitched battle with law enforcement over their guns rights, or if some citizens decide to take out their anger on our cops, not only will the cops and assailants die, but innocent people will too. This is simple logic: shooting in communities endangers the communities, not just the shooters. E. Pro's data is not accurate, as I said last round: "His article notes that .16-3.2% of defensive gun uses are reported to police; this is not the number of total, successful defensive uses; due to failure to report, the numbers are likely higher." To quote directly from Pro's source: "only 3.2 percent or 0.16 percent respectively of defensive gun uses are reported to the police." Then, Pro tries to indict my CDC evidence by citing a Politico article. What the politico article says is that the CDC was biased in the 1990's in favor of gun bans. Since Pro correctly notes that my source was from 3 years ago (not the 1990's), it was not selected from the period of bias. Moreover, if the CDC's bias is in favor of a ban, then when they say that guns are useful we should really take notice; the Politico article strengthens my data's credibility. Finally, 3 years is not really out of date, and I'd take 3 years old vs. evidence that isn't even talking about what Pro says it is talking about.F. Pro basically goes from: "gun bans help black people" to "gun bans probably don't hurt black people." Regardless, this portion doesn't really weigh under the saving lives metric we're using for the round.G. Pro shifts the goalposts, adding new stuff to his plan, namely that the public won't be informed of the ultimate goal: banning. Vote Pro down on the theory--this is categorically unfair. Moreover, it is 100% a new argument, so even if you don't buy that it shifts the goalposts, you should disregard his argument entirely anyway. Extend that (a) people won't comply, and (b) there will likely be escalating and stiff resistance.AccidentsFor the umpteenth time in this debate, Pro misunderstands things. In R2, I pointed out that there were currently no safety features require for guns and that such features would effectively curb accidental deaths. I said "safety features solve." The clear purpose of this was to run a counterplan to solve for the accidental death.VOTING ISSUES1. Murder Rates My 2 studies (Huemer and the meta-analysis) are more reliable than Pro's small dataset, correlational observations. My studies show that (a) gun bans are ineffective and (b) that reducing gun restrictions lowers violence. I pointed out that culture could be why Japan, Iceland, the UK, etc. have low gun homicide rates, rather than as a result of a ban--thus undercuts Pro's data further. Moreover, I solve for 2. Defense Guns are highly effective defensive tools that protect victims from injury, saving their lives. 3. Gang Violence Due to our porous borders and gun culture, it is likely that the US will have a thriving black market, leading to more gang violence. 4. Right-Wing Violence Gun regulations and bans will incite right-wing violence that will spill over into communities, causing the deaths of assailants, law enforcement officials, and civilians. 5. Debate Theory Pro shifts the goalposts after agreeing note to--this is unfair and a breach of debate etiquette. Because I prevent more loss of life than my opponent, Please VOTE CON! Thank you!