Violence provoking the act of murder.

I accept.The [#] is the source numberCaseI will begin attacking his argument that violent media causes problems.It's actually the opposite - the more violent that entertainment / media becomes, the less violent a society becomes.The source says, and I quote:The study notes that film violence followed “a rough U pattern” during this time period, but that societal violence fluctuated differently, with the latter half of the 20th century even showing an increase in film violence “associated with reduced societal violence”. [1]Regardless of becoming desensitivized, people become less violent. His subsequent argument doesn't exactly make sense with what he is arguing, but I will try to answer it here:Actually, yelling FIRE in a theatre pervades the clause of "Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". In fact: The issue is not the action of exercising your free speech, it’s about creating a hazardous environment for people by virtue of yelling fire or any other method you might use. Because this then creates a panic, and thus a dangerous situation where people could be trampled or otherwise harmed in some way as they attempt to evade a danger that only existed in your sadistic mind. You could pull the fire alarm, not yell anything, and you’d be guilty of the same violation; so the speech used is never the issue. By creating a panic, you infringe on someone’s right to life, as enumerated in the Constitution, since a panicked crowd becomes a serious health hazard to everyone involved. Sadly, our Constitution is misunderstood, violated, and under attack every day. As Americans, we should understand that the Constitution was right long before we even fully understood how to implement it. We were slave owners declaring all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights, after all. [2]And my final source, that guns actually increase the risk of homocide and lethality: The unique significance attached to guns is summarized by the “weapon instrumentality” effect. This phrase refers to the independent effect of weapon type on crime and likelihood of injury, a factor dramatically illustrated in cases 3 and 4 at the beginning of this chapter. That is, the death rate and degree of injury associated with crimes involving guns is far higher than it would be if guns were not involved.One study concluded that assaults with guns were five times more likely to result in death than knife assaults. [3] Sources1) http://www.independent.co.uk...2) http://logicallibertarian.com...3) Robert J. Spitzer, Political Science Professor SUNY, 2015, The Politics of Gun Control, 6th edition, p. 57---Capitalism Critique ‘Human rights’ subordinate everyone to the only people who count as human, a determination made by global capital. Moufawad-Paul, 13, http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com... The pro creates this sense of life and moral security- this construction of rhetoric produce the same annihilation Pever Coviello, Prof. of English @ Bowdoin, 2k [Queer Frontiers, p. 39-40] This focus of life creates a survivalism destroying the value to life - turns their case Slavoj Zizek 2003, (the puppet and the dwarf, 94-5) No value to life with capitalism- it takes away rights to education, democratic decision-making, and workers’ rights, and increases gender and racial inequality Hill 7 (David, Prof. of Education Policy at University of Northampton, UK, Chief Editor:Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies “Analysing and Resisting Capitalist Education: Six Theses,” Rouge Forum Conference, http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...) (Karusala) Resisting reliance on capitalism is the ultimate ethical responsibility – the current social order guarantees social exclusion on a global scale Zizek and Daly 2k4 (Slavoj and Glyn, Conversations with Zizek page 14-16) The alternative is to do nothing solves the inevitability of capitalism action is doomed to fail – it can only replicate the parameters which produce violence in the first place – abstaining from this desire solves capital and the aff Zizek 2008 Slavoj Violence p 216-217 SpanosWestern conceptions of freedom otherize the Orient and assume unlimited and natural power to colonize the other, drawing on American exceptionalism in doing so. Burke, 7 (Anthony, Senior Lecturer in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Beyond Security, Ethics and Violence, p. 225) The affirmative’s attempt to avert crisis is ultimately rooted in a fear of the uncivilized Other and can only be achieved by civilizing that Other. Spanos, 2k (William, America’s Shadow, p. 18-19) In this way, American exceptionalism creates a socio-political context that defines humanity in terms of those that are civilized enough to be considered human and those that are un-human. Spanos, 8 (William, Distinguished Professor at Binghamton University, “Global American: The Devastation of Language Under the Dictatorship of the Public Realm,” Project Muse) This normalization of violence devalues life and creates the ontological conditions that make extinction possible. Spanos, 8 (William, Distinguished Professor at Binghamton University, “Global American: The Devastation of Language Under the Dictatorship of the Public Realm,” Project Muse) Refusing to acknowledge the unique colonial violence of exceptionalism perpetuates war and produces a blindness and indifference to the sociopolitical violence against other humans that allowed the Holocaust to happen. Spanos, 8 (William, Distinguished Professor at Binghamton University, “Global American: The Devastation of Language Under the Dictatorship of the Public Realm,” Project Muse) The alternative is to refuse the imperialist logic of the affirmative in favor of ontology of guerilla warfare. Shanahan, 8 (Bill, YES – that Shanahan, Did General Petraeus betray us?, 15 April 2008, http://www.everydaycitizen.com...) Ontology of guerilla warfare will expose the inefficiencies of Western metaphysics and cause it to self-destruct. Spanos, 2k (William, America’s Shadow, p. 154-155) Ontology comes first - it’s the starting point for all political considerations Dillon, 99 (Dillon, Prof of Politics- University of Lancaster, 99 [Michael, Moral Spaces p. 97-98])