Winter Regular Final: Gun Ban

Rebuttals Suicides First the absolute biggest problem I have with this point, is that it presumes to undermine what suicide really is, ignoring it's effects, and failing to understand the reality of suicide. Of course suicide is "less likely" without a gun. Using a gun is probably the quickest, most painless method of suicide that most people know about. Impassivity is just as likely with most medication that any adult can get their hands on in a 5 minute depression spurt. And even if Over-dosing is more likely to result in a failure, that doesn't mean that the person will stop trying to kill themselves, or that the help you give them will even work. This argument puts the responsibility of the death out of the person pulling the trigger, and turns the gun itself into something more sinister than an inanimate object can realistically be. So my opponents sources show us that suicide is more likely, but don't account for every case, or even most cases of depression! So what if we take that weapon out of the hands of someone who is mentally ill, who has been medically treated for depression many times, has been through multiple different psychological treatments, and still is 100% sure they want to die? All you are doing is leaving them with a far more painful option for suicide. Some people can be helped, others can't. My opponent isn't accounting for all types of depression and personalities. He goes further to say that they have a higher likelihood of survival. How sadistic is that, for someone who wants to die quick and painlessly, but fails, having to continue living in a world of self inflicted mental trauma, and we are proposing that they stay and suffer when medical treatment has not effected them? People who have major, persistent, and psychoactive depression symptoms who are much harder to treat. I am agreeing with my opponent's sources on impulsivity, and stats of higher likelihood of suicide. So my argument to this point is that suicide is a non-issue, and shouldn't be a factor in a gun ban. Ideologically, suicide is a choice. While it is in our best interest to help people with depression, the government should NOT have a vested interest in self harm that doesn't adversely relate to criminal activity towards others. It should be a civilian issue, and responsibility should fall on family, friends and loved ones to make sure a weapon isn't readily available to their loved ones. Homicide To save character space and make this debate cleaner, I will do my best to combine this point to his rebuttal to my argument 1, as they are essentially the same point. My opponent drops some quick stats on homicide being mostly performed with firearms. In my last round I spent a good little paragraph spheal about how inaccurate these sources are to making to making the point, and in the rebuttal section of his response, my opponent seems to agree. In my last round I had also showed a link with homicide statistics that shows countries with increase of violence after a homicide ban. (1) What this means is that these stats are a non-issue. Take away guns from the criminals, violence still occurs. There is no statistical evidence from my opponent to prove that every homicide is simply not going to occur because we take away a weapon from someone with true intentions to commit harm to another person. My opponent laughably chooses the wrong part of a quote to attack. The point of the quote, quite obviously was to point there is no correlation between gun availability and crime rates which was the point I was trying to make. However, to refute my opponents inaccurate assumption of "his source just says it", I advise that he scrolls down a bit. The U.S. has a violent crime rate lower than 12 of seventeen industrialized countries due in large part to the 2.5 million annual defense gun uses.(2)(3) Prior to that, it also dedicates high gun crime to suicides which is also in interesting tid-bit, given you seem to agree that suicide is a good reason for a gun ban. 60% of American gun deaths are suicides 44 and the U.S. has a suicide rate 11% higher 45 than international averages. This accounts for most of the difference. (4)(5) On to the black market debate, my opponent incorrectly accuses me of a Nirvana fallacy. I don't think he fully grips an understanding for that fallacy based on the context he uses for it. It's only a fallacy so long as it's supporting the idea that violent crime decreases with the banning of guns, which is what he is proposing, but not what has been demonstrated here on my side of the debate. However, the black market argument applies similarly to drug use. Because drugs are illegal, yet still very accessible, it's tangible evidence of the effectiveness of a black market in the U.S. What I am saying is that banning drugs or guns doesn't make them any less available, there is no fallacy in that. The factor of deterrence my opponent introduces has no evidence supporting it at all, nor does it cover the harms of removing weapons from the hands of those who do not mis-use weapons, while acknowledging mass murderers can still get their hands on them. My opponent in his own rebuttal is saying "Let's give the big mass murderers weapons and take means of self defense away from the would-be victims, all for the potential idea of deterring someone from wanting to buy a gun to shoot and kill someone with." See what I am saying? They've already had thoughts of committing a crime, but simple laziness is what's going to keep them from buying from a black market? Convenience isn't a big make or break factor in what makes a "good" person a bad person who will go to some lengths to kill another human being. Pro is riding a thin line to make a stretch out of this one. Next my opponent makes an inaccurate statement by saying guns on the black market would not be affordable. He then sites a an article for Forbes magazine to prove his point (his source 4). Several flaws with this. 1. We aren't even talking about the same type of black market's. In this article, Agent Mulham is talking about street blackmarket's. I am drawing comparisons with ease of access through online blackmarket's, which aren't even comparable. 2. Guns are already legal?! How is my opponent drawing conclusions about black market costs from a vague quote from an agent when it is already incredibly easy to get firearms? This conclusion wouldn't be accurate until after a gun ban had actually happened. 3. The article doesn't actually make them sound that expensive. "Well, a quality pistol like a Glock might go for double or triple retail. Lower-quality guns, however, are often worth only $100 or $200 more than retail." Criminals can still get there hands on weapons for a mere 100-200 more than normal retail prices, awesome. Sucks for all you law abiding citizens out there. Pro later assumes that "Knives and clubs" will replace guns after a gun ban, with some vaguely obscure reasoning about obscuring the flow of gun creation except for police and military. This in an inanely naive way to assume the black market will be shut down, ignoring overseas benefactors, mis-use of military weapons providers, and international part creation. My opponent doesn't supply any actual evidence here that the black market would be shut down, and again we can cross apply the current drug black market here as well. Accidents Again I am going to combine my my counter-plan to this argument to keep things cleaner since it's the same topic. My opponent puts a source demonstrating the number of deaths caused by guns deaths, and follows it up by saying that "Gun accidents are the worst kind of death". I am utterly baffled by this statement. How is a gun death any more senseless, and devoid of purpose than any other accidental death? If guns were to be banned, this would not happen. Right, if guns were banned, no accidental deaths will ever happen. Got it. We should ban cars too, since they have one of the highest number of accidental deaths. Following that Pro says this, possibly one upping his previous baffling statement: Putting trigger locks on loaded guns is dangerous, and using either "safety precaution "completely takes away any self-defense argument Con can run. Why oh why would the trigger locked gun have to be loaded? That makes no sense, and defeats the purpose of trigger locking the weapon in the first place. Next my opponent says gun owners won't follow this plan. Many people also don't follow the law about drinking and driving, but they still get caught and punished. Again, if an accident happens then an investigation will prove that safety requirements were not met, and punishment can follow. Alternatives I am not contradicting my black-market argument at all actually. I am acknowledging that any of these counter plans are fallible. Having alternatives to a gun ban just mean it fulfills Pro's deterrence argument to some degree while at the same time avoids all the negative impacts of taking guns away from law abiding citizens, protecting that constitutional clause that gives us safety from our government and others. My opponent cross applies this logic to both the psychology argument and extensive licensing argument with no further rebuttal, so we can assume Pro agrees that these are viable alternative methods. Sources: 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, Dutch Ministry of Justice, 2001 3. Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997 4. Center for Disease Control WISQARS Fatal Injury Data is the National Vital Statistics System for 20105 5. World Health Organization, mortality database as of November 2006 6. http://tinyurl.com...