Winter Regular Final: Gun Ban

SuicideCon argues that the government does not have the responsibility of stepping into the subject of self-harm, and therefore should not intervene in the issue. Con justifies this by saying that the reasons for why people commit suicide are vast. That there is no way to tell whether someone is being forced to continue suffering, or if they are actually being helped and getting better. Thus if I show that people can be helped and get better, the justification is proven false. To this I bring up my statistic, for the third time now. 80-90% of those treated for depression are successful in alleviating their problems [1]. Since I can show--and have shown--that the majority of people are helped and get better, Con’s justification is proven false. Thus this argument is negated. Con also argues that my plan would force some people to live in pain, and have to use a more painful route to escape their suffering. As I said before, letting people kill themselves eliminates the redeeming option of getting better. There is always a chance, and a gun takes away this opportunity for the people. Since this opportunity to get better is always present, and outweighs all the suffering experienced to get there, this opportunity must always be made available. A gun ban does this.Furthermore, even if we accept what Con argues above in its entirety, it is still negated by weighing analysis. Since 80-90% of people will have their suffering reduced, this is the majority. Thus, since more suffering is prevented than is created, my side still wins out. Con furthers his non-government-intervention argument by saying that the government can still protect its citizens and not violate freedom of choice. Firstly, this is a straw man fallacy because a gun ban would not take away a citizen’s right to commit suicide. Merely not do it with a firearm. This would be to discourage it, but not at all ban it. Even if we were to accept this argument as relevant, the harm principle does not work here (harm principle is Con’s reasoning in this argument [2]) because people outside of the individual are harmed by the suicide such as loved ones, the community, etc.HomicideCon says that he did not accuse me of dropping an argument. In R2 Con says, “My opponent drops some quick stats on homicide...”Con argues that because of his black market argument, criminals will continue using guns through the black market and not resort to less effective weapons such as knives, clubs, etc. But as I have shown, the black market’s strength will be hindered as the result of a gun ban because of the disruption of flow. So it is quite the opposite as Con argues; illegal guns will become less available. Con quoted a website claiming that gun ownership had an effect on crime. This claim had no source. All the other sources listed afterwards had no relevance to his quoted claim. Even if they had relevance, it is self-refuting because of Con’s argument against raw data from different countries, which Con dropped.Black MarketCon argues that the nirvana fallacy cannot be applied to this argument because Con would have to agree with me that guns are a problem, and that the black market isn’t a solution to that problem. This is a blatant straw man of my proposal. I will explain what I mean in depth. This is basically Con’s argument. 1) Violent crime is bad2) Guns are used to carry out violent crime. 3) Not having guns makes violent crime less effective. 4) If guns were banned, criminals would just use the online black market to purchase guns.5) A gun ban wouldn’t reduce violent crime. 6) We should not have a gun ban.Con has conceded 2 and 3. I was arguing that this logic was a nirvana fallacy because although some criminals would use the online black market, even if I concede the majority of criminals would use the black market, this is not all criminals. Some criminals will be deterred, as I have pointed out earlier, by internalizing the danger of their actions. Some will be deterred by the increased cost. Some just aren’t premeditative criminals. It is truism that a portion of crime is not premeditative. Thus, a gun ban would partially reduce the amount of guns, and thus partially reduce the amount of violent crime. Con is attempting to reject banning guns at all based on the logic that it does not stop all violent crime. A nirvana fallacy is rejecting a partial solution because it's not perfect. That is why Con’s logic behind the black market argument is fallacious. This alone is enough to throw out the impact of the argument. But even so, there is reason to believe that a gun ban would actually hinder the impact of a black market, not enlarge it. This is also a reason to value a gun ban over Con’s counterplans, as his counterplans wouldn’t combat the black market.As my study shows [3], the key to an effective black market is the flow of the product. Banning guns would entail the manufacturing, transportation, and sale of guns. But the important part is the manufacture. If there is no influx of product--or at least this influx is hindered--the entire system is hindered. The amount is considerable when you take into account that the US is the top manufacturer of firearms in the world by far [4]. While traffickers can still attempt to import firearms from other countries, this makes their job a lot more difficult. But as long as it hinders the influx, the system is not as effective. And that's exactly what a gun ban does. AccidentsCon responds to my argument on the reason for why people will not use trigger-locks by saying that people will get caught and punished for doing it. But this does not explain why people will use trigger-locks. As I explained, people own guns to be safe. Trigger-locks hinders their ability to do this. Con shows that it would not completely shut-down their ability to use it for self-defense, but he does concede the fact that it hinders it. Thus my objection is still valid, since using trigger-locks hinders the owner’s capability of protecting himself (which Con concedes), and the entire purpose of him having a gun in the first place was to do so, gun owners will not use trigger locks. Whether people will get caught and punished is irrelevant to the fact of whether people will use trigger-locks. Con needs to establish that everyone will use trigger-locks in order for his rebuttal to work. Saying that since it is a law, everyone who breaks it will be caught and punished is meaningless since it does not establish why people will follow the law. Con needs to use external reasoning to show that people will follow a law. Saying that it is a law is the reason people will follow the law is circular, as is being caught and punished. Even if we accept that being caught and punished is viable, then my homicide contention stands and Con’s black market argument falls. If that is valid reasoning, then I could reason that guns being banned would mean that nobody would break it because everyone would be caught and punished. This reasoning contradicts Con’s own case. Thus his case must fall or this reasoning must. CounterplansFirst off I would like to explain that even if all of Con’s counterplans are accepted as true that it has no weight. Con argues that these counterplans would preserve all of good things about guns without having a gun ban. “It satisfies the best of both worlds” as Con puts it. If Con’s counterplans were to hold all of the values that my case presents, then why should we choose Con’s plan over mine? If a gun ban and his plan were to hold the same values, he must provide a reason for why to choose his counterplans over the gun ban. When Con says it satisfies the best of both worlds, what's the benefits in the world without a gun ban? He does not give anything. His case in R1 consists of a defensive argument against violence deterrence from a gun ban and introduces his counterplans. Thus, since my gun ban and Con’s counterplans hold the same values, there is no reason to choose one side over the other based on the contention. Therefore this contention is neutralized.Thanks...to TUF for this debate, I have definitely learned a lot from it. May the best debater win![1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...