Mental health evaluations should be required in order to buy a firearm

Introduction: Thanks to my opponent for his prompt and thorough reply. There seems to have been some confusion about my points. They were not each a standalone argument. I numbered them simply for the sake of organization. I apologize if the use of the label "arguments" was misleading. Arguments: 1) Justification of Self Ownership This was not a direct argument against required mental health evaluations; it was meant to establish an ethical foundation for further arguments. It establishes the premise that we should respect other people's right to own themselves. This theory can be found elsewhere on the Internet and has been used in many other debates on this site, so if my explanation is too confusing you can read many others. Pro has not offering anything coherent to actually contest this theory. 2) Justification of Property Rights Pro does not seem to have understood this argument. It is an argument against stealing guns, but that is not the point. I clearly established what property rights are and how they stem from self-ownership. Preventing people from exchanging items with whomever they wish is a clear violation of their property rights. Pro's response to this point has not contested the theory either; it's just a response to some comments about gun theft that I never made. 3) Restricting the Trade of Guns Pro has offered another rambling response that is utterly disconnected to my actual arguments, which can be reread above. I cannot address his response because it literally has nothing to do with what I actually wrote. Pro does not seem to have understood any of my first three points, which establish the philosophical foundation of my position, so I extend all of them. They have been replied to (vaguely) but they have not been contested, 4) Mental Illness Cannot Be Defined Objectively My opponent's source has proven that there are ways people define mental illness, but they are not completely consistent with one another. As I indicated in the last round, psychology is far from completely understood. Homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder. The fact is, human psychology is too complex for us to arbitrarily use force to constrain all those deemed different from normal. 5) Private Alternatives Pro notes that private alternatives to government regulation are not infallible. Sure, that's why black markets exist. I'm simply making the point that a free market won't just hand out guns to every crazy who comes and asks for one. There are nonviolent ways of achieving these goals. My nonviolent system may not function as well as a police state for dealing with these particular issue, but the net gain of respecting freedom is undoubtedly greater. Pro really seems to be deeply confused about my theory if he equates it was slavery. Slavery is my definition against libertarian principles; I practically used it as an example in the first round. He thinks regulation is the solution to our problems, but he does not see regulation for what it is: more violence. 6) Preventing Gun Violence is Impossible When I discussed increased security, I of course meant private measures. In fact, I specifically outlined that I was not proposing government security. If Pro thinks I am suggesting a police state then he obviously did not understand my previous arguments at all. His rant about spying is unrelated to anything I suggested. I really don't feel the need to outline how private security firms work because I think it's understand that they are not at all like a government. Furthermore, his concept of the burden of proof in this debate as evidenced by this argument is completely flawed. He never stated that his goal was to prove that mental health evaluation requirements would reduce gun violence. I assumed that his argument was that these requirements would be better. Reducing gun violence is not a goal in itself, the real question is whether the policy is just and will improve society. If all you care about is reducing the number of people killed by guns then you should look in to nuking the entire country. That would lower the number of gun related homicides dramatically. I'm going to focus on actual outcomes instead of statistics. Conclusion: Pro has not addressed my first three arguments so I'm just extending them. He completely lacks a fundamental understanding of the theory I just laid out. Rather than typing the whole thing out again and repeating myself ad nauseam in an attempt to explain, I'm just going to refer everyone back to Round 1. It's ironic and a little irritating that my opponent has dismissed my case as "irrelevant" and then responded with random comments that did not relate to anything I actually wrote and showed a complete lack of understanding of what I actually said. I hope that he will reread Round 1 and reply next round with something related to my original arguments. I'm going to refrain from arbitrarily inserting sources into a dialogue that does not require them. The only point that was factually contested was already addressed by my second source in Round 1, and I do not feel that I am at a disadvantage in sources because two of Pro's three sources just referenced irrelevant statistics about gun violence rates in different states.