Completely Take Away The Gun Rights

Thanks for your time and your ideas -- they are valuable to my understanding of the world, even if I do not agree with them. In this round, I will be attacking my opponent's constructive case, not defending against attacks made against mine (see: round structure in R1).A note on burdens: because my opponent uses the US as an example, this resolution and debate is focused on the US. Any outside data and so on isn't really relevant to the resolution or debate, so we should just discount it. My opponent gives us this counterplan: to have gun regulation by means of liscencing, a psychiatric evaluation, and some other factors. If I disprove my opponent's contentions under this counterplan, the counterplan logically falls apart and cannot be defended. If anything falls out of order, then the counterplan is no longer a just means to seeing the resolution.C1. Black marketMy opponent gives us no reason that a black market is something that we need to defend ourselves from. She says that the 'bad men will still get their guns' but she provides us no way to accurately assess that statement -- she provides no means for us to actually realise this impact, so we can't say that all bad men will still get their guns within the US, just that their might be some. She says that a black market will form because we can't legally get guns in the US -- of course, I claim, it'd be incorrect for me to say that this is wrong. If we shoud not ban something because a black market may form, should we not ban murder? There is an illegal black market for hitmen forming, and is increasing in power every day -- but is the harm of this blackmarket outweighing a lack of a ban on murder through legal means? Of course not! Murder is immoral so we need to ban it, even if a black market may arise - the same holds true for guns. C2. Gun bans don't workMy opponent is basically conceding all of her ground throughout this contention. She says that we need to have a psychiatric evaluation of people and an extensive background check (this is her counterplan) ... when the exact same thing was instituted in California and the San Bernardino shooting happened as a result. Having any legal means of purchasing guns will lead to guns being purchased and people being passed by on the system (and Farook and Malik had legally obtained their weapons according to your very own source!). My opponent has no solvency at all in her counterplan because her contentions concede that the counterplan simply won't work.C3. ConstitutionUnless you have evidence that there is active tyranny and that this tyranny outweighs the patriarchy, Oedipus, and private ownership, we don't need to consider your contention at all. We aren't given any way to assess the timeframe or probability of tyranny, therefore in impact analysis we can't even consider it.C4. Not significantMurders are not significant in the world, yet we ban them. Slavery does not have a lot of death in the world today, does that mean that we ought not to ban it? The conclusion that you are deriving from the statistics is not even coherent -- okay, it may not be huge directly, that means we need not consider it at all? Then why do we consider your counterplan?Further, this evidence only talks about the Earth, not the USA -- which my conceded framework says we need to look to the US and any outside data is irrelevant. Thanks!