 because our invaders like to be the lightest thing in the room. Alright, first up we have our extemp speech which we announced earlier and this is, again, a memorable topic, is our social media outlets unfairly targeting conservatives. So now I welcome to the stage Jack Walsh. The election of Donald Trump. Richard Spencer was the keynote speaker at the National Policy Institute, a conservative think group, think tank and organization. In this speech he criticized liberals like Obama and Clinton and espoused the virtues of the Trumpian doctrine. This speech got a little bit heated and culminated in cries of Heil Trump and the seek Heil salute from Spencer and members of the audience. This was taped as speeches of his nature often are and Richard Spencer received quite a lot of backlash from both sides for these actions. In response he took the pose most comfortable to the modern conservative. One, he claimed that it was ironic that it was just a joke, can't you take a joke? Two, he said that he was being unfairly victimized by a liberal controlled democratic media. This is common for these kinds of conservatives and is continued and seen throughout all of modern culture. The issue with conservatism is that it is an inherently violent ideology. Groups like Black Lives Matter have recently been recognizing and attempting to rectify their own persecution. This has led white dudes like Richard Spencer to reach the conclusion that victimhood is in vogue and playing the victim is a popular and fun thing to do. It's what everyone's doing, why not me? The issues with conservatives and the reason that we ask questions like is social media unfairly targeting conservatives is that they fail to recognize that conservatism is a fundamentally violent ideology that it fundamentally leads to violence. But how does it fundamentally lead to violence? The first thing that we need to talk about is the two types of violence. Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek posits two types of violence, subjective and objective. Subjective violence is the sort of violence that you can see, like theft or arson, there's clearly someone being harmed, there's clearly someone doing the harm. Objective violence is more subtle. Objective violence is the kind of violence inherent to power structures like capitalism. It's inherent to hate speech, which retrench, ultimately, which retrench institutions. Institutions like the military, like police, like the government. The problem here is that the state has a monopoly on what violence is, which is why arson is seen as violent, while, for example, denying tens of millions of people health care isn't. Conservatives engage in fundamentally violent speaking and thought through their actions. What we need to recognize is how social media and conservatives' actions on social media play into these sorts of violence. Conservatives espouse this violent ideology through social media outlets in order to oppress or express the institutional and the righteousness of the institutional oppression of women, of black people. Conservatives took to Twitter to decry Leslie Jones, ultimately forcing her to delete her Twitter account. When some of their Twitter accounts were deleted because they called Leslie Jones Rachel's words, they claimed this was a violation of their free speech rights, playing the victim yet again. They're playing the victim because they are the perpetrator of a crime and have nowhere else to go. They target queer folk. I went on Reddit just 20 minutes ago, and the first thing that I saw was something saying, I'm sure glad that we live in Trump's America, because in Canada they passed a law that forces you to respect people's gender pronouns. These kinds of problems are inherent to conservative media and lead to the kinds of violence. But what causes this violence in the first place? The issue with this violence is the idea established by neoliberal democracy of tolerance and of contention. It is theorized that there are two sides, that each side can have their opinion, and that while we connect, while we don't have to accept the opinion of the other side, we must respect the other side's ability to make that. The issue here, as Zizek points out, is that this ideology is fundamentally alienating. We otherize people on the other side in accepting but rejecting that which they have to say. And this leads to violence in the point of contention when one side goes too far. The modern conservative movement, older conservatives, Orrin Hatch says, is not shouting Heil Trump at a neo-conservative rally. The modern conservative movement is better than that. Orrin Hatch being a segregationist. The issue here is that when we have these points of contention, this necessarily leads to otherization between groups of people. And when they cross that line, we say that, that's violent. They did that, that's wrong. But the problem is that it's the system that's violent. The system which allows these points of contention to occur necessitates the kind of violence that we see today. Which is why we need to do, as Zizek says, we need to inaugurate a new land. One which is not based in the ideals of normativity, of tolerance, of institutions. We need to break away from the biopolitical institutions which entrench and reinforce harmful norms and oppression against a slew of people, anyone that isn't a white dude. We need to recognize that these institutions are negative. Break away from these institutions. We need to break away from institutions. Because only if we break away from these institutions can we have a break away from objective and subjective violence. So if you ask, are conservatives being unfairly targeted on social media? What you need to be asking is, what makes conservatives think that they're being unfairly targeted on social media? How can we make them think that they're not being unfairly targeted on social media? What role do institutions play in the maintenance of social media and the targeting of conservatives on social media? We need to break away. We need to break away from objective violence. We need to think. We need to dissent. We need to talk. And we need to act. We need a new left. Thank you. The debate. And so the topic that has been decided upon for this debate today is to resolve that U.S. federal government should ban all firearms. As such, as this is a hotly debated and prevalent issue in our society today, we'd like to have a brief forward before we go on to the debate. On February 14th, 2018, a sick man entered into Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, bleeding to death of 17 people and rightfully caused outrage. Following the attack, there's a feeling of anger and sadness and anger, an unmistakable urge to do something. This anger and rage has been channeled into productive behavior, such as the student-led walking out protest that featured voting registration booths and ways to write California representatives. Though giving your voice heard and your feelings out in the open is essential, so too is listening. After all, we have two ears in one mouth for a reason. That something won't happen unless we sit down and listen to each other. That starts with giving your rivals the benefit of death. No, not all people who disagree with you want to ban all guns, and no, not all people who disagree with you are complicit in murder. But what does that look like? Well, it looks like sitting down and hearing people who disagree with you. If your position is correct, it should hold up to scrutiny in the marketplace of ideas. And that's exactly what we're set to do here tonight. During tonight's signature event, you'll hear an award-winning debate performance. It's important to point out that the opinions and values expressed in this debate are not necessarily those of the debaters, because all debaters are required to write cases for both sides for every event. As such, we ask that you keep any negative feedback to yourselves, but feel free to express positive feedback whenever a debater makes a good point. The stability, evidentiary standards, critical thinking, and professionalism exhibited during tonight's debate should serve as a model for the national dialogue we need to have who wants to solve this problem and others in the future. With that said, if we could please take a moment of silence for the lives lost in Parkland, Florida, and all across the United States in senseless gun battles. Now for the Caleb, as he will introduce the debaters for tonight's debate. I'm in Thailand real quick. So, I'd like you to make noise for each of the debaters as they come out. On the affirmative side, first up, it's a five-nine-eighty-pound senior who applied to every Ivy League school he'd heard of, and at least two he hadn't. Please welcome Albert Hooters for the perceived IQ boost. Please welcome DHS speech-in-debate's very own blond joke, Elise Trugavan. We have a six-foot-seven junior who puts the con in conservative. It's the man who has more control over the round than he wants the government to have over him. Please welcome Blaine Clay. Resolved, the United States federal government ought to implement a nationwide gun ban. Contention line is mass shootings. The United States has the highest gun murder rate of any developed nation. 67% of all homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, with over 30,000 people shot dead in a year. Year after year, another shooting tragedy occurs. And another, and another. These won't stop until we outright ban guns. Charlotte Bacon's grandmother described her as sweet, outgoing, and full of energy. But on December 4th, 2012, her life was abruptly ended by an AR-15. She was six years old at the time. 19 other first graders died that day at Sandy Hook, and six more adults. Orlando, Florida, June 12, 2016. 49 shot dead and 58 wounded by an AR-15 out of 912. Las Vegas, October 1st, 2017. 59 dead, 527 wounded. The shooters had 24 semi-automatic rifles. And just one month ago, February 14th and 2018, 17 students brutally murdered, shot dead in the very hallway of their classrooms. We cannot let another life die due to gun shootings. These aren't just statistics. These are real people, humans, with hopes and dreams that are dying because of gun violence. There's no getting around it. A gun ban is needed to end the violence in America. Most countries have already done so, so it's time for America to follow suit and do the same. For example, after Australia implemented severe firearm restrictions and a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons in 1996, they never had another mass shooting. Across the board, the country has been better off. According to Australia's National Report statistics, since the ban took place, firearm homicides have dropped by whopping 59% and suicides by 65%. Contention 2 is dangers of ownership. There exists a myth that guns are only bad in criminal hands, and that law-abiding citizens should be encouraged to carry guns. But this is a woefully misconceived opinion because guns should not be in households. Period. The statistics don't lie. Professor Dixon explains, murder is not confined to the ranks of those with criminal records. It is an act of terrible violence, which we are all capable of if sufficiently provoked. Only 21% of murders occur during the commission of another felon, and at least 48.8% of homicides, the victim was either a relative or an acquaintance of the murderer. Given the ease at which homicide can be committed with a handgun, as opposed to knives, handguns may well be the factor which transforms a heated argument into a lethal attack. The simple option of running away will be available far more often in the case of these other kinds of attacks than in the head case of a handgun attack, the most likely source of handgun murder? Ordinary citizens. In fact, guns are a major factor in intimate partner violence. According to every town research, in an average month, 50 American women are shot to death by intimate partners. Today, nearly 1 million women alive have been shot. Abusers use guns to threaten and control their victims. And even worse, guns are directly linked to a massive increase in suicides. A 2008 study by Harvard University explains, analysis of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of fire and ownership and suicides. In states where guns were prevalent, rates of suicide was higher. The inverse was also true. Where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower. The Violence Policy Center quantifies that people living in a household with a gun are five times more likely to die by suicide than people living in a gun-free home because it gives them an open avenue to suicide. In addition, 6 out of every 10 suicides is committed by a gun, equating to 90,000 deaths a year. For all these reasons, Elise and I are proud to affirm today's resolution. Thank you. When he was SpongeBob SquarePants when he said, How was an interesting point? Here's my rebuttal. Contention 1, lives saved. In the discussion about gun violence, we're rightfully concerned about lives lost, but sometimes our focus on this prevents us from focusing on the lives saved as a direct result of gun ownership. Guns generally are used to save lives more often than they're used to take them. In January 2013, President Obama signed an executive order commissioning the CDC to research gun violence in the United States. Obama's CDC concluded that defensive gun uses by guns by crime victims is a common occurrence. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million defensive gun uses per year. Guns are obviously not the only method of self-defense, but they're safer and far more effective. Defensive uses of guns are effective in preventing injury to the gun-billing crime victim. Studies that directly assess the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates amongst gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. In fact, according to one study, women who were previously victims of violence report purchasing firearms for self-defense more often than not. Carol Runyon, Karika Steele, and Catherine Morocco were reported in the U.S. National Library of Medicine in 2007. Women with adult experiences of violence used different strategies from women who'd experienced no violence in their lifetime. Over 40% of victimized women had a gun in their home, and about 65% of those had more than one. More women experiencing victimization had acquired a gun themselves for self-protection. Our second contention is prohibition. Though policies intended to reduce the supply of or access to something are often noble, they will invariably have outcomes that are just as bad or worse as what the policy sought to prohibit in the first place. Analyzing 1920s-era alcohol prohibition, Douglas Rogers, writing for the Foundation for Economic Education in 2010, notes that the goals of prohibition were never met. If the goal of prohibition was to eliminate or even reduce many of the problems associated with alcohol consumption, such as criminal activity and deaths and injuries via alcohol, prohibition was an unambiguous failure. After 13 years of speakeasies, corrupt enforcement, and criminal empires, one of the main lessons that we derive from prohibition is that government cannot effectively legislate against people's tastes. The failures of prohibition are still around to this day. Shelton asked me right in New York Times in December 31, 2017, the war on drugs in the United States has been a failure that has ruined lives, filled prisons, and cost of fortune. The prohibitions on drugs create perverse economic incentives that make combating drug producers and distributors extremely difficult. The high black market price for illegal drugs has generated huge profits for the groups that produce and sell them illegally. Not only have prohibitive efforts failed for drugs and for guns, but efforts to prohibit access to abortion have had similar effects. Rosenthal writes for the New York Times in December of 2007, a comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it's legal and in countries where it's not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure is little to deter the women who seek it. The law does not influence a woman's decision to have an abortion, but the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dates involved. Where abortion is legal, it will be provided in a safe manner. Where it's illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers. Here's the key. There's no room to speculate whether the failures of prohibition would be different for guns. Cook, Ludwig, and Braga write in 2007, underground gun markets have developed in the United States in response to federal regulations that seek to prohibit ownership and possession of firearms. A few jurisdictions, including Chicago, go further and essentially prohibit the private possession of handguns. Economists like to point out that government prohibitions on transactions are difficult to enforce. The ingenuity of the marketplace motivated by profit will overcome whatever legal obstacles are put in place. As a New York University law professor James Jacobs observes in this regard, some criminals claim that it's easier to buy a gun on the streets than it is to buy food. Chicago's handgun ban demonstrates that it was ineffective in reducing the prevalence of gun ownership in the city, suggesting that a ban on guns would not affect the amount of people who purchase and own guns in the United States. Not only that, but prohibition would only fruit the discrimination against minorities. In 2014, Bradley Balgo writes in the Washington Post that 47.3% of those convicted for federal gun crimes were black, a racial disparity larger than any class of federal crimes, including drug crimes. In a 2011 report, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that African Americans were far more likely to be charged and convicted of federal gun crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences. They were also more likely to be hit with enhancement penalties that added to their sentence. Even more, a ban on firearms would only further this discrepancy as it would criminalize those simply possessing and transporting handgun firearms. The Washington Post further is by stating that a firearms ban would only lead to targeting people who possess, sell, or transport guns reasonably, and that the selection of who and how heavily to prosecute is dependent on the biases of the prosecutors. Rather than solving crimes, you see law enforcement agencies actively seeking out and targeting racial minorities in attempts to encourage them to commit a crime, upon which they have been trapped into long prison sentences. A firearm ban would only perpetuate the cycle and reinforce structural racism. But these two reasons Kenneth and I strongly negate today's resolution. That you're presenting the CDC. So the CDC is an analysis, right? What study does the CDC analyze? The CDC analyzes an aggregate amount of study. It was commissioned by President Obama and analyzes data from different time periods. Is the main study they analyze the CLEC study? Not to my knowledge, no. The study was commissioned by President Obama and it was founded by the National Academy of Sciences. What do they cite? Like literally in your own car. What do they cite in the study? They cite CLEC, correct? Sure, sure. But I mean, that's not correct, but we'll sue. Great. Do you agree with the methodology of the CLEC study? No, I don't have it on me. Okay, I'll tell you the methodology then. The CLEC study only surveys white males in the deep south who own guns and white males in the west, okay? They take those statistics and then they aggregate that. They extrapolate from only doing a telephone survey of 5,000 white gun-owning males who extrapolate that to the whole country. Is that correct? So you're aware that the CLEC study cites like several other studies, right? Like it's not just one study. Yes, but CLEC is the main study. Would you like a question? Sure, I'll ask you a question. So we talked a lot about mass shootings, right? Specifically to Merrill. We'll get on to Australia and other countries in an hour. So who is responsible for mass shootings? Murders. People who use guns. And in 80% of cases, it is actually a person in the household. You're going to go for this? No, no, no. You're misconstruing your evidence. Your cards said that 80% of people who commit intimate partner violence are people who own guns in the household. No. Do not say that mass shootings were committed by 80% of people in the household. The card says that only 20% of these murders are actually committed during felonies, right? The other murders are committed by things like familial discipline, right? You're missing a point. Ordinary people are getting done. You're missing a point. We're talking specifically about mass shootings, right? Who commits mass shootings? The murderers, right? Correct. So why are you blaming it on legal law-abiding gun owners? Because in many cases, legal law-abiding gun owners were these murders, right? In many of these cases, that was like, do you people buy these murders? If they're legal law-abiding gun owners and they commit a mass shooting, are they then still legal law-abiding gun owners or are they mass murderers? The point is they were able to get a gun in the first place. If guns were banned, they wouldn't have bought them because they bought them illegally. So before we can talk about it, Kenneth is going to talk about in the AR how we just enforced laws on the status quo and it's totally fine. You don't think that in the status quo we have laws that effectively enforce gun control? Can I have a question? Sure. Okay, let's go with this idea about the criminal black market, right? The idea that, let's say, people right now, people of color are targeted in the criminal justice system. Sure. Is this unique to just guns? Or is this true across the board? Let's say with dronics, alcohol, across the board, people of color. Sure. I understand the question. The Washington Post in 2014 says, 47.3% of those convicted for federal gun crimes were black or racial disparity in larger than any other class of federal crimes, including drug crimes, suggesting that this is a particular outlier in terms of sentencing disparities. But you agree that as a whole, right now in the country, people of color are hurt across the board with any law, right? Not just on law. Sure. So let's not make it worse by banning guns. Okay. Another life ended in crossfire. Using today's debate also, too, it contradicts other national data. As Anapa says, the National Crime Victimization Survey, the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI found over a period of 27, 2007 to 2011, victims did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of the incidents. This clearly shows that on a national scale, when national evidence is actually looked to, people are not defending when they use guns. They simply buy the guns that are not able to do anything with them. Three, he brings up this argument about how women in intimate partner violence situations are more likely to buy guns, because they're in these situations. But the evidence never says that they use these guns. They may feel safer because they have them, but nothing actually comes of it, and there is no stopping of these violent people who they claim that the guns are helping them for. Also, four, I'm going to turn this argument. As we grow up in our own case, 80% of cases in gun violence happen at the home in which regular people who are using guns simply use it in a violent way. It can be even on accident. Even children can get a hand on guns and kill people accidentally. This is clearly increasing violence. So while people, when they actually are in desperate situations, they don't turn to guns, they aren't able to use them for their own benefit, it actually negatively impacts people because they accidentally or purposefully hurt people in a fight. So that argument completely goes away. Now I'm contented to five responses. One, he brings up alcohol in abortion prohibition, but this cannot be applied to gun violence. People wanting alcohol is very different than the wanting guns, and it's much more likely that these would play out in personarios. Two, the resolution specifically talks about how we would be banning a manufacture and production of guns. So if this were the case, even if some people got their hands on guns, that doesn't, they would probably drastically mitigate its effects. Most people would not want to take the effort to buy and go out and go through the lengthy process of buying a gun if it was already illegal. Three, as we brought up in our first speech, Australia proves that a gun ban is possible. When they ban guns, there was a decrease of no more mass shootings and a decrease in gun suicides and homicide at home. This shows clear proof that even if it's not the same effects in the US, it could have similar ones. Four, gun ownership is currently on the rise, and that has been true for the America for many years. So we should be trying to combat this with banning guns even if it does a completely abolished system. And five, there's a huge misconception in the case where they specify how specifically criminals are still going to get their hands on guns even if it's illegal. But the problem is that most people who are committing these crimes, 80% of people at some five-minute first years are simply, as he says, law-abiding sentences who kill people at their homes. Those people who simply wanted guns for defense are probably not going to want to go through the lengthy process of illegally buying a gun and doing this in an illegal way. They'll probably mitigate for those 80% gun violence. Even if some criminals still buy guns, we will be able to drastically decrease those numbers. Also, he brings up how it's unjustly against minorities. However, this is a non-unique argument because he brings up specifically that in, for example, gun violence in minorities, there is unfair enforcement, but there's no reason that this would be explicitly worse in a world where we're going to brand new guns. So this is a non-unique argument and that in no way it will be outweighed by my affirmative case because the number of lives we're saving will outweigh a possible slight differentiation in racial discrimination because it is simply true that we live in a world of racial discrimination and that should not stop us from actually leading forward to more change. So overall, when we look to Australia, their own prime minister said, we don't want to go down the American path. That is why they implemented a ban on, a ban or a strong string of restrictions on guns. We, America, as literally our progressive laws are a horror story for the international community. For those reasons, we should be trying to create change and you should vote affirmative. Wayne Shane Lee and Sandy Swain economic policy in 2010. The 1996-1997 National Firearms Agreement, NFA, in Australia they introduced strict gun laws. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates. Not only did the Australian gun ban not actually reduce gun fines or suicide, but a similar gun ban would also just not work in the U.S. We have a population that's North America's greater than Australia and a much more rigorous and politically active gun culture that's just not going to back down. Furthermore, what many people failed to realize is that the United States had a similar program from 1994 to 2004. The National Institute of Justice reports that the Federal Violent Crime Control and the Law Enforcement Act of 1994 banned the manufacture of trans-work and possession of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines. The Attorney General's required evaluation found according to the National Institute of Justice. We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent robbing gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best. In other words, just like ours promised to bring that candy on Friday, the affirmation is that the ban will be used during mass shootings. It's an important subject, which is why we need to look at the root cause of said mass shootings. In our current system, there are programs and systems in place to cash these red flags and prevent mass shootings from happening. An ability to solve this issue should not place a responsibility upon legal gun owners. Faith Karimi reports for CNN on February 25th, 2018, a woman close to the Florida shooter called the FBI tip line in January with an alarming message the shooter is going to explode. In the weeks leading up to the February 14th massacre, people reported signs about crews. The law enforcement officials failed to act, and during the shooting, the deputy assigned to the school stayed outside the building. So, this gun ban won't actually reduce mass shootings and it actually won't reduce gun violence as opposed to what they said, and rather the fall is lying in our other preventive systems that are acting on the information that they do know and preventing these tragedies from happening. Now, go on to their second intention. Their second intention revolves around the idea of citizens using guns in terms of suicide and domestic violence and other crime-related activities. Now, even if an issue that access to guns facilitates or makes suicide easier is worth knowing that individuals in town on suicide aren't necessarily stopped simply because they can't access guns. That's because banning guns isn't solved for the underlying cause of people wanting to commit suicide an issue that revolves around mental health. In fact, the evidence indicates that the relationship between gun ownership and suicide exist is the exception and not the norm. Mark Antonio Rice explained in 2015 that both Japan and the United States are currently restricted gun control policies where almost all guns are basically illegal and yet they have some of the highest suicide rates with Japan at twice the U.S.'s and South Korea is at the highest in the world. The same fact is also seen in countries such as Hungary, Poland, France, Belgium, and Austria. They all have stronger gun control policies and they all have much higher suicide rates. Those that you won't see a decrease in suicide, these groups that you won't see are the first enforcing laws that already exist. Victor and Mercy write in 2006 that these laws restrict access to firearms by individuals who are subject to a restraining order who have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. The office found that female intimate partner homicide rates declined 7% after a state passed a restraining order law. We've seen here that there already exist laws that prevent domestic abusers from legally accessing guns. A full-on gunman won't deter bad people from doing bad things and especially won't deter domestic abusers from being abusive. For these reasons, we strongly urge you to vote no against this resolution. Of course, and they're not taken on properly. So why would we vote for this? I'm confused. You say that mass shootings. Yeah, I say that there are system laws that are ineffective. When they fail, we see these tragedies happen but when they don't fail, they don't happen. Did you bring up any scenarios where they don't fail? No, that would be the answer. So why does that mean we don't do it? The reason I'm giving this argument is that it's not that current gun laws are ineffective, but it's that the people who are enforcing those are arguably ineffective. So if you make this gun law, you're not going to change the people who are enforcing it. Do you have evidence saying that they wouldn't become more effective or that they could become more effective? Wouldn't that be argument for your side? No. That's a good question. Let's go on. So I'm going to say that's the worst. You basically say that Australia would be ineffective. Like, Australia is like, that proves that gun men would actually work, right? Yeah. So what's the population illustrator? Doesn't matter. The relationship that I think even if we don't obviously have the same exact statistics to show improvement in America, I think it still shows that it is possible and that there could be similar effects. Possible and similar. Okay. Yeah, there hasn't been a ban in the US so we can't use a nationwide ban in the US. What about in Australia? What about the 90s? What about the 1990s? Was it a nationwide scale? So, they completely banned all of us. No, they banned the sole weapons in large scale. Okay, well that's a difference. You can argue that Australia and the US are just different as well. I don't see that. Like, I don't see that. I don't see that. Australia didn't have a decrease in overall violence. Like, what about the like, 67 percent decrease in homicide? What does it warrant in your eyes? Like, I think I read in your case and I feel like your case is a bit suspicious. There was a 67 percent decrease in overall homicide. What's the warrant for your evidence? Again, I tell you that like, multiple studies not even including here tell you that the overall journal contemporary policy... Yeah, what are they studying? Australia! I'm asking for a warrant to help. Okay, I'm not there like, mom, I don't know. This tells you that 60 percent of 67 percent of homicides right now in the United States are because of guns. They are committed by firearms and the ease of use is because we have firearms. We'll be expanding more on that later then. Let's move on to these four mass shootings I bring up. First, Sandy Hook Second Orlando, Florida, Third Las Vegas and Fourth Parkland. Now, Kenny says that this is an issue of mental health and not necessarily gun ownership. But it's absolutely an issue of gun ownership because the point is these AR-15s, these semi-automatic rifles, these were all bought in a legal manner by people. Essentially, if we had a gunman, people would not be able to buy these guns so easily. These people who committed the crime wouldn't be able to just go out in the store and buy guns. Remember, they say in their case that essentially there's an underground gun market. But the underground gun market is only for hardened criminals. We tell you that ordinary people are committing these crimes. 80 percent of gun violence is committed by ordinary people. That means if we have a gunman who's very least, he's stopped this 80 percent of crime even if we don't stop it all. For the more, let's move into this Australia evidence. Now, Kenny's buying into this fake news idea. He's saying, oh, I don't know where the source is. It's a little bit sus. We literally have a source from CNN. Are you going to say that CNN in New York Times is all fake news? I think that's not true. I think it's real news. Let's rewind. This Australia evidence is super, super critical. It tells you that when they happened it's no more mass shootings happened. Number one, number two, homicides dropped by 65 percent. And number three, suicides dropped by 59 percent. This is a empirical study just before and after. Once they banned guns, these were the results. Furthermore, he says that in the past when the U.S. banned guns, it didn't do anything. However, this is true fake news because according to the Washington Post in 2018 compared to the 10-year period before the assault rifle ban that we had before, the number of gun massacres during the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent. And the number of people dying from gun massacres in the U.S. fell by 43 percent. But after the ban in the U.S. lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again. An astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths. That's directly after the assault rifles ban was taken out in 2004. This is from the Washington Post literally this year. Furthermore, you're going to extend our contention to. This is critical because it tells you that suicides are directly linked to guns. Essentially, the ease of availability of guns in the home allow people to kill themselves and it makes it so suicide rates go higher. The VPC specifically says that homes of guns are five times more likely to have suicide. He cites that Japan, South Korea and all these countries have higher suicide rates but no guns. But you can't make the direct comparison between Japan, South Korea and America because it's well known that Japan and South Korea their suicide rates are because of their stress, culture and academia. Not a result of anything like guns or anything like that. So in fact, you're going to buy the suicide evidence because it's directly from the VPC. And finally, he doesn't address this Harvard site. This is critical because it examines 50 states across the US and it tells you that in these 50 states across the US in every single state where there were less guns there was less violence. And in every single state where there were more guns there were more violence. And so for all these reasons I affirm today's resolution. Thank you. Harvard study is so important it's perhaps because Harvard actually rejected Albert's application. Is why should we vote for the ineffective status quo? Okay and they're misunderstanding what me and Kenneth are saying. What me and Kenneth are saying is that right now in the status quo we see that there are laws in place structures in place that are intended to prevent things from happening. We've read the card from Camiri at CNN which you know they really bolster their CNN events we also use CNN evidence whatever. We've read this card that said law enforcement failed to act and then they asked us like why should we vote in favor of the status quo well then she threw out the daily wire tells you exactly that on February 23rd 2018 there was a decision to give more authority to the authorities that failed why would a law by his owner hand over his underweapon to the same authorities that did nothing to protect the children in Parkland why would a single law by gun owner turn over his or her capacity for self-defense to people who were in cable of defending children at every step of the way children aren't dead not because of millions of good citizens owning AR-15s but because dozens of pathetic incompetence that's a really important card we're going to talk more about it there are several common threads amongst mashers that allow us to know that they're about to commit a mash you're about to engage in mass violence before it happens the Washington Post reports on September 14th 2017 what is clear however is that regardless of ideological motivation or even the complete absence of any such drive these kind of attacks are usually presaged by some clear word sign most people who commit serious crimes that's not where they begin they didn't just start committing gun crimes such as scousers or co-workers they're often profoundly alienated from society they threaten each other with a knife punches neighbor in the face and struck his neighbor's boyfriend with a shotgun before firing around with a man as he fled the pulse nightclub shooter routinely beat his wife the retinas co-workers who can barely hold down a job even shooters without violent history such as Charleston Isla Vista or Virginia Tech were known by friends, family or teachers to make disturbing threats and have withdrawn from social life what this tells you right is there are these plain indicators in the status quo already that we need to enforce yes they're not being enforced and that's exactly the problem but if you want them to be enforced the solution isn't to vote a favor of mass confiscation of guns it's to ask police officers and law enforcement to do their job okay so they talk about gun violence and we talk about we talk about different countries and they accuse us of using this like South Korea this South Korea argument like South Korea we can't talk about South Korea and Japan but we can we can compare South Korea and Japan to the United States and what's really funny what's really important to know is they say that we like we can't like we're trying to analyze Australia and the United States and then they come up here and they criticize us for analyzing South Korea and tell us we can't do it absolutely ridiculous Japan, South Korea and their suicide rates are both subject to debate and subject to scrutiny during today's round so we have to talk about like 1994 and the gun ban in 1994 right so they talk about how it actually prevented mass shootings and prevented gun violence but we need to read what the National Institute of Justice who issued the report after the 1994 gun violence clap they analyze they tell you that subtitle A Safety and Recreational Fire Research and Protecting Act of the Act Ban of Manufacturing Transfer and Positioned Museums that solve up his large capacity ammunition disease in magazines the attorney general of the United States goes on to conclude we cannot freely credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence should it be renewed the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small effects and even then they talk about statewide they cite this Harvard study where they talk about like several different states right but you have to consider the data for five states with assault weapon ban in this 2003 book The Bice Against Gun Controlling for sociological variables he found no evidence of reduction in crime to the contrary the bans were associated with increased crime in some categories state level data does not support the claim that assault weapon bans reduced crime rates so what we see across the board guys is they start with this contention about mass shootings and it's appeal to emotion but they failed to neglect that in the status quo there are things that indicate that mass shootings going to happen and we need to look at those massively law-abiding governors who are not responsible for mass shootings that's our key response in their first contention then our second one is about dangerous ownership and gun ownership but then we tell you the CDC okay Obama CDC they try to come up here and tell you that the CDC study is biased from a conservative point of view that the CDC was commissioned by Obama not only that but it was not only commissioned by Obama and yes it did involve data collect but involved many other studies so for them to try to refute the CDC car which is really really good it takes into account other studies and that's a study and for these reasons we strongly urge about the favor of litigation during this period okay no we don't yes you do you say John Law in 1993 alright we bring up a study from David E. Coppel the Cato Institute 2015 which cites an economist named John Law alright anyway so you cite John Law same thing alright so let's go over this guy John Law sure how does the academic community view John Law no idea okay I'll tell you in fact let's just read this what is the talking head of the pro-gun community on use programs yet his daunting resume fails to tell the entire story today the more guns less crime hypothesis by law has been thoroughly repudiated on closer inspection his impressive credentials reveal an academic no matter never able to secure a place in academia his ethical transgressions range from fabricating an entire survey to presenting faulty regressions to creating an elaborate online persona to defend his work and bash critics so you're saying this is a good author no we're saying it's a good author okay and David Scythe's John Law correct okay here's first off yes sounds really like you okay second off if you want to go down that route we can question like who said this who made this argument I feel like you're just picking hairs like splitting hairs where they shouldn't be like splitting I mean the whole what's important to understand is that even if you deny like David Cogel and John Law's evidence at a statewide level you still have to answer for the Attorney General of the United States and the National Institute at a federal nationwide level the 1994 ban was ineffective would you like a question sure I'll take a question actually what are you going to ask us something about that's pretty entertaining sure I'll ask you a question so you say this South Korea and Japan it's like the criticism we made of that is the same as the one of Australia correct essentially but there are other questions South Korea and Japan was that you have a shaky link between suicide and the actual cause of a gun ban whereas in Australia it was empirical analysis before an act of revenge so here's the answer to this question but you really don't like us to cite South Korea and Japan for whatever reason no you can cite South Korea and Japan if you said that a gun ban or like a gun ban had no effect on like a suicide but you're not having a like a gun ban no it's a problem with your Australia like analysis right like in the Australia analysis it doesn't actually the reason why our evidence conflicts is because your evidence doesn't actually think of the fact that there's other factors other than the gun ban that reduces what just happened but once they banned guns there was no more actually I don't think there's any let's take a step back no ok first place I'll have that by second so here's like you have to understand this part ok you're gonna continue to criticize us for using Japan and South Korea but you neglect the fact that Antonio Wright analyzes data from the World Health Organization which comes to the same conclusion that not only do Japan and South Korea they have ban on guns and they have high suicide rates but the same is true of Poland, Germany, Australia Korea and Japan have a stress culture sure does Poland, Germany, Australia and the United Kingdom do you have a stress culture? like that's a really good question empirically Japan, South Korea these countries I wanna know what your answer is yes I would like to answer your question I asked a question oh sorry yes I would like to ask you a question to me you criticize the Japan and South Korea evidence right but you don't consider the fact that the World Health Organization tells you that Hungary, Poland, France, the United States and all have strict gun control means like how do you answer that I would say that still is only correlation and there's no way you make that directly okay wait whoa whoa whoa you have no no no hold on hold on I had eight different countries you were talking about correlation you bring up correlation you just say this thing happens in these countries and so does this and you bring up because of how an event affected how their okay but we also give you direct analysis alright alright I have one question and then we're adding what's going on way too long Kenny do you own a gun your kid would you own a gun I have a correlation between those two where as a link between why a ban on guns led to a decrease in violence next they bring up this idea about how the US was there was no deep when the US banned assault rifles there was no decrease in violence over one their study as we brought across the nation uses an author that was very flawed and frowned upon in the academic community additionally he brought up evidence that was not responded to by the post said that when there was an assault banned rifle in the United States there was a 30% 37% decrease in gun massacres meaning that we clearly do have in periods not to why a ban in the United States had real results next they stated status quo gun laws were ineffective and they're not enforced but the claim that they're trying to make here is that we can just enforce them better you can't just enforce laws better again to be ineffective this is why you need a ban on guns because enforcement is not good and we simply need to out my ban to create any change additionally you can extend the point about intimate part of violence and decrease suicides there's very clear evidence from Harvard University which says that there was a decrease in suicides and that clearly shows to you why if we were to simply take away guns from these average people we are able to actually decrease suicide and decrease violence using today's debate they bring up prohibition however again you can cross apply the evidence about how their evidence was flawed and how it didn't take a correct sample size and how prohibition is in Australia it was very clearly empirical that it can be done and lastly they bring up how guns save lives there is no empiric to back this up our evidence showed that 99% of people even if they buy a gun don't use it to do anything and in the way that guns sleep leads to more violence because they either don't know how to use it or they get angered and start using it in negative ways a ban on guns would have clear decreases in violence decreases in debt and betterment all of American lives for those reasons I affirm the resolution their studies say there is a decrease in gun violence there is a decrease in mass shootings or homicides after a gun ban and our studies say there is no substantial evidence of that happening from both the attorney general and multiple studies the reason why our studies prove they take into the fact that correlation does not mean causation they take into the fact there are other sociological factors that could lead to a decrease in gun violence or decrease in gun homicides or mass shooting so insofar as they don't actually prove they don't delve into the topic themselves but they criticize us for giving so you cannot buy their evidence again our evidence takes into account that there are other factors as well there is not as comprehensive but furthermore look to the fact that our first contention they talk about they say that only 99% of people who buy a gun or own a gun actually use them that doesn't those things aren't usually exclusive again you can still buy the fact that guns actually do save lives and they do save lives much more than they actually harm but furthermore don't forget that our second contention which is really key because there are two major points first up when you put like when you put like like like like like like when you put like ban something including alcohol including drugs including abortion in different countries like when you do that that doesn't actually lead to a decrease in the amount of people who actually use it or like who actually buy it or use it or try to attain it all you're going to do is like make it so that people who are trying to attain those things can only do so illegally and when we see that and when we apply that to guns we're only don't buy the fact because again no matter what like we've seen history like historical evidence proves like when you do this sort of action when you do some sort of prohibition especially the resolution which bans guns outright like that's just not going to achieve the results that you actually want and then like let's just talk about like their first and second contention again they talk about like 67% of like murder victims or due to gun homicides and they talk about no reason why that would actually change they say that like current laws like current gun laws don't actually work well because the law enforcement doesn't work again you're not changing the law enforcement you're just changing the number of laws that you're putting in and like restricting the rights of legal citizens so insofar like you're not changing the law enforcement like personnel you're not going to be changing how they enforce these laws they're still going to be ineffective and furthermore like domestic violence and suicide they don't actually correlate well with the gun ownership and furthermore domestic violence again we've proved to you that like if you ban guns you're not going to be reducing the cause of domestic violence all you're going to be reducing is like the amount of people who like illegally are being access guns but again we tell you with current laws and like other laws that actually just limit people who are domestic abusers from getting laws in the first place which makes sense that actually decreases the amount of people who are being hurt without anything and it's way too overreaching in terms of like harming the rights of American citizens you should not vote for this resolution thank you so first make some noise if you think the AF team here won we're going to speak to the DHS speech and debate boosters so they're basically the like the audience that fundraises for us and allows us to go on all the trips that we go on so like this fundraiser they help put this together as well as they help us go to invitationals like we go to UOP we go to Berkeley and we go to the state boosters so we just like to give them a hand right now I'd like to welcome up to the stage so could I have Mrs. Nacronov and Mrs. Widman please come she helps us out in so many different ways she organizes a lot of events that we go to and she coaches us in all of our events as well and this is like a great help like I said we can't have this program with our and she's pretty much I think one of the best coaches and best organizers but see when we came here like when we started organizing things we realized that Mrs. Nacronov had pretty much like done most of the work already and didn't have a lot to do so like this event ran so smoothly and went so well because of her and so we wanted to give a big hand for like making totally possible there's sticky notes I've been told on the list or on the items you should make sure to pay for the item if you want the item in the lobby and then second there's still pizza it's fifty cents a slice two slices for a dollar two slices for a dollar two slices for a dollar two slices of pizza home it's real cheap it's real good I think that's all for announcements thank you all so much for coming and supporting us