Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates

I once again appreciate all arguments made by PRO so far, and will continue to do so. Preface/Premises for jurisdiction The main justification for which crime rates are judged in the present context of this round rests on logical reasoning that both sides of this debate must provide clear jurisdiction. Yet when we look back across the flow, the overarching issue remains that my opponent has not provided a clear connection between any of his arguments relating how handguns in of itself as an accessible firearm will limit crime rate probabilities, only by saying in numerous situations how the presence of such an accessible firearm will provide a limiting factor for which criminals will have a second thought when premeditating a crime. The hypothetical situations that PRO has provided do not provide adequate justification for which votes can be placed on, and thus we look towards the side for which sufficient justification has been made. Now looking towards the inherent resolution itself, we see that my opponent must not only refute my points concerning how and in specific ways why crime rates will not be diminished due to accessibility of handguns, but also further his arguments to provide for further justification to uphold his side, as is his burden of proof. Yet it is important also to note that there is no component of my framework that bases itself off of regulations, thus we see that PRO's issues concerning the latter are invalid. As I have provided grounds for which my opponent's thrust for his argument is improbable in validity and logical coherence, we turn to specific refutations and arguments. 'Arbitrary Decision/ Cause of Crime'? Now, recall that throughout the course of this debate, not only have I addressed the moral as well as rational normatives that are pervasive throughout the whole of our societal contract, but also metaphysical issues that are key to my framework. Yet looking to my opponent's response to my rebuttal, we find it immediately to be a non-sequitur. Indeed, in much the same way that he advocates for looking to the cause of a crime as the fundamental factor on which jurisdiction must be placed, his refutation faces a myriad of problems. He specifically concerns himself with and ascertains that "Whether or not a person becomes a criminal isn't a matter of odds. It is a matter of choice." Yet the fundamental flaw that he, as PRO fails to intrinsically address is his confusion between the conceptual ideologies of 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge. The intuitive distinction rests upon the justification that the matter of choice of an individual to commit him/her self to crime is not known by the rest of our social community; we do not have the benefit of 'a posteriori' knowledge, which rests its basis upon empirical evidence or previous knowledge. Individuals who have already shown themselves to commit themselves violently will obviously be subjected to different categorical moral and social considerations outside of our epistemic normative. We are in the doubt, with a priori knowledge; we do not know whether an individual will choose to do so; yet a way to prevent just such a fact is limiting accessibility, as I have reinstated numerous instances throughout. Now, note distinctly that PRO provides no justification whatsoever for which how having guns for easier accessibility will actually decrease crime rates with such a moral and social doubt that we are intrinsically beheld with; it is inherently impossible to predict actions of individuals, thus the probable fact of commitment to a crime rests on 'odds', as my opponent so flagrantly contradicts. Rational discourse or disputations relating to probability is trivial in this round. Yet my opponent seems to assume a circular argument in which his unsound arguments base itselves off of the hypothetical argument that capacity to commit crime has no justification whatsoever. Yet looking to his arguments, at any rate he is only attacking a strawman. The jurisdiction once again falls to the plausibility of his arguments concerning probability; yet he provides NO logical or tangible connection himself whatsoever between probability and crime rate. Now recall that the whole of my ethical framework concerns itself with a fact that no statistics on PRO's part can sufficiently justify in of its own cause; it seems that my opponent seems to be advocating for a truly moral ontologically basis for his arguments in this difference principle: DP: If X can commit a crime and is subjective in interpretation as well as being wholly capable of committing him/herself to crime, it would not aggravate the probability of crime if we provide extremely easier accessibility for firearms/handguns. Now looking at this from any perspective, whether it be logically or ethically, there is no justification for such a truly absurd argument or proposition, yet which is also a fundamental basis for his refutations. Au contraire, my parallel argument preferrably argues for the basis for which causes are looked to, as is vindicated and advocated by my opponent in his views as PRO. Not only does he thus subject himself to implementation of points in my case with his points, but provides a truly circular and logically fallacious rebuttal. Perpetration of crime criteria: It is truly interesting as well as fallacious how my opponent once again makes such a bold claim in his refutation for the cause of perpetration of crime. He, as PRO, seems to be laboring under the vivid misconception that if there is a possibility that crime can be committed without guns, then having guns would not have an effect in any tangible way on crime. By advocating for just such a position, he undermines the concept of rationality as well as logic inherently. Indeed, let us envision just so an argument following after his example: A: Consuming a salad would serve the purpose of alleviating hunger. B: Yet consumation of a candy bar would serve the same purpose; thus consuming a salad does not serve as an adequate method for which jurisdiction may rest. Not only is this logically contradictory, but PRO imposes this as an argument for which his framework's validity itself may be questioned. He continues to write on, supplementing his advocation for the fact such that a criminal would be more likely to attack an unarmed bank than one which has firearms inside. Once over, he fails to address the core issue which provides the very grounds for which perpetration of crime exists: accessibility of handguns. Assertations on his part completely neglect the epistemic normative issue which I have reinstated multiple times throughout this debate; handguns in of themselves are items that pose threats to a social community and which also exceed any other method of perpetration of crime in extremity and efficiency. The mere fact that we can limit accessibility of a handgun to citizens also explicitly shows that a criminal will, as he hypothesizes, so consider once again probabilities of succeeding in attacking a bank without such a method. Now moving on to the point that PRO makes concerning my misconstruing of the resolution to say that we must completely remove firearms. Not only is this divergent from my conceptual ideologies, but also what my framework bases itself upon. PRO's point (7) shows merely that we may see not a direct correlation between handguns and murder rates in some areas; yet the underlying issue is that the resolution conerns itself not with murder, but with crime in of itself. _____ The thrust of my case and framework rests upon the fact of plausibility in commitment of an individual to crime, regardless of the epistemic or rational normative. My opponent's statistics, as I have sufficiently shown, not only do not provide the characteristic point of justification, but actually go to supplement my advocations. As PRO fails through any justification to provide for an adequate rebuttal, my case thus stands.