Now useless prep

1
Extra T is a voting issue- Our interpretation is that every part of
the 1AC plan text must be defended by the solvency advocate.
The plan text is T, but the rest of the aff isnt. The aff is extra T bc
your solvency advocate advocates for regulations on all guns,
which isnt a ban, nor is it specifically for handguns.
William S.

Harwood 2 attorney in Portland, Maine. He is President of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence and a member of the

American Bar Association Coordinating Committee on Gun Violence, Gun Control: State Versus Federal Regulation of Firearms, Maine Policy Review
Volume 11 | Issue 1, 2002

Under a coordinated federal-state approach, the federal government would set

regulations which would serve as the minimum or floor. Because these federal regulations would apply
uniformly throughout the country, all dealers and gun owners would be required to comply with these federal laws.
However, states would be free to impose stricter regulations if they wished to do so. For example,
the federal government may prohibit gun dealers from selling to those convicted of a felony. But states could go further
and prohibit sales to those convicted of either a felony or a misdemeanor. In essence, the

states could serve

as laboratories for experimenting with new regulations while the federal government
would take the more conservative approach of only adopting regulations that enjoyed broad public support throughout the
country. If state regulations proved successful at reducing gun violence, they would then become candidates for inclusion
in the federal regulations. Once enough statesparticularly those with large consumer marketsadopted similar
regulations, gun dealers and owners would be more willing to accept those regulations being adopted by the federal
government and thereby put into effect in all fifty states. Under this scheme the

federal government would

allow individual states to aggressively address the problem of gun violence but would also
provide a firm floor beneath each of the states programs In addition to the federal government providing the minimum
floor and the states experimenting with tougher regulations, the federal government and states would cooperate on
another level. Specifically, under a coordinated federal-state approach, the federal government would concentrate on
regulating firearm manufacturers and commercial dealers, and the states would concentrate on private ownership and use
of firearms. Because of the need for uniformity in setting standards for the manufacturer of firearms, it would be
preferable for the federal government to set those standards. Conversely, when adopting regulations for the safe storage of
firearms inside the home or transfers of guns between collectors or friends, there is much less need for uniformity and
much greater opportunity for regulation to be tailored to reflect the specific values and customs of a particular state.

Their paragraph starts here Finally, the coordinated federal-state approach would include a coordination
of enforcement activities by the two levels of government. For example, if the federal government decided for reasons of
fiscal prudence not to devote enough resources to properly enforce federal regulations, the states would step in. If there
were not enough ATF agents to inspect the records of the federally licensed gun dealers in a particular state to ensure
compliance with federal regulations, the state police or some other state law enforcement agency would begin doing so.
Perhaps the biggest drawback to such a coordinated approach is the risk that the two sets of regulations will not be well
coordinated. Rather than complementing each other, there is a risk that signifi- cant activity contributing to the level of
gun violence may fall through the cracks between state and federal regulation and thereby frustrate the combined ability
of either level of government to successfully combat the problem. This drawback should be manageable if there is a true
spirit of cooperation between state and federal policymakers. Obviously, constant vigilance will be necessary to prevent
gaps from developing that frustrate the goal of effectively regulating firearms. In summary, rather than picking one or the
other, both the state and federal government should regulate but in a well coordinated manner that produces a better
regulatory program than either could produce alone. The states should concentrate on individual responsibility of gun
owners and serve as the laboratory for experimentation and comparison, while the federal government should concentrate
on manufacture and commercial distribution of firearms and provide a strong minimum base of regulations upon which
the states can build if they choose. By adopting such a coordinated approach the chances of significantly reducing gun
violence in the United States are greatly improved. PARAGRAPH

ENDS

Prefer our interp that requires that the plan text be defended by the SA- otherwise
justifies reading any position with a semantically topical plan text and wildly different
advantages. Esp in this round- they moot regulation CP ground for instance.

Net benefits:
1. Topic literature- kills predictability bc doesnt exist in the literature. Especially
applies given the federal-state communication- prevented states CP ground for
instance which is key to generally test necessity for the federal actor.
2. Extra T is bad- A) If the aff has to do more than the resolution to warrant a ballot,
that proves that the resolution was insufficient so you should vote negative. B)
Theyve claimed significantly more solvency for militarism than they should by
supposedly regulating all types of guns in the SA. Even if the plan text is T, its
uncertain how much of the advantage they could solve. C) Especially applies in
this instance bc the aff SA said regulation- kills neg regulatory CP ground. Your
vokh card wont get you anywhere in this T debate- it literally just says handgun
bans might violate the self defense part of the constitution, not that we should use
a handgun ban to end culture of violence or that handguns are a starting point to
end it.
3. Heres the solvency advocate and evidence the 1AC didnt have.

Handguns uniquely key to reduce American gun culture.

Granted its only USFG.
LaFollette 2k Hugh (USF St. Petersburg Philosophy Professor) Gun Control Ethics 110 (January 2000): 263281
Gun advocates disagree: they claim that cultural factors explain the correlation. Although I think they are partly correct,
they draw the wrong inference. For one crucial difference between European and American

cultures is the
way it is, at least in part, because of the role guns (or their
absence) played in its creation and maintenance. Therefore, curtailing the private possession of guns
might well change the American culture so that it would be less violent. Consequently, it is not
widespread presence of guns. Each culture is the

only that fewer guns would directly cause some decline in violent crimes - which it should. It is also likely to reshape the
cultural values which, along with ready availability of deadly weapons, lead to such an extraordinarily high murder rate in
America. On the other hand, the statistical evidence that guns prevent or thwart crimes is suggestive and cannot be
ignored, despite its identified weaknesses. In summary, the overall

statistical evidence tilts in favor of

gun control advocates, although the evidence is disputable. But we should not expect nor do we need indisputable
evidence. We can act on the best evidence we have, while being open to new evidence. If widespread availability of guns
were responsible for even one-fourth of the increase in the number of murders, that would be a significant harm the state
should prevent if it could do so in a relatively unintrusive and morally acceptable way. There is little doubt that we can do
that, at least to some degree. If nothing else we could control some types of guns and ammunition. To take one obvious
example, teflon-coated bullets are designed to pierce protective vests. People do not use these bullets to pierce the vests on
a deer or a squirrel, on a target or a skeet. They use them to pierce the vests on people, usually law enforcement officers.
This ammunition has no purpose except to cause harm. Hence, we are justified in abolishing teflon bullets and in
establishing severe criminal penalties for those possessing them. This would not save large numbers of lives. But,
assuming this ban's enforcement is not impractical, then, if it saved even a few lives, that would be a compelling reason to
outlaw such bullets. On the other hand, some guns have a much wider use, even if they are occasionally used for ill. People
have seemingly legitimate uses for shotguns and single-shot rifles. Consequently, barring strong evidence to the contrary,
we should not abolish them. We should, however, study their contributory role in causing harm ,
and explore ways we might lessen this harm in a relative unintrusive way. The central debate concerns handguns. The
evidence we have shows that handguns are disproportionately used in homicides and in robberies.
Although "there are approximately three times as many long guns as handguns in the US, more than 80 of gun homicides
and 90 of gun robberies involve handguns (Hemenway, D. 1995: 60). The experience in Canada suggests that

criminals will not switch to long guns if handguns are unavailable. Given the special role
handguns play in causing harm, we have compelling reasons to extensively control, or perhaps
even abolish, handguns.
Thats a voter for fairness

Drop the team- question of advocacy, if you cant vote for the aff advocacy you should
negate.
Also 100% takes out solvency even if the aff is T - you dont have a solvency advocate for
the aff plan anyways, esp since your advantage areas have nothing to do with handguns.
The aff is literally just a plan text now, Any risk of the kritik or the turn
Dont evaluate plan text in a vacuum-