The U.S should ban guns

Framework: Con talked about how I need to justify my framework for using Moti Mizrahi's idea that when we look at the word 'should' it only entails a moral or ethical approach to the resolution, not a way to do so and so on (funding, specification of who enforces, and so on). Basically Mizrahi's entire paper (I cannot link because it is an academic paper, sorry) is saying that if you ought to do something, you don't need to actually do it if it is impossible. He gives the example of "you ought to help someone else in a car accident that you hit. Are you free from all moral obligation if your legs are broken?" He argues that no, you are not free from moral obligation, you are just free from having to act on that obligation. Big difference -- prefer this over a lack of framework on the con side of things.Con's definition of gun is fine. I do have a problem of a lack of specificity (e.g. a BB gun could be counted and modern intuition is that there is a difference between a BB gun and a normal gun), so I'd suggest an addendum saying something along the lines of "made to kill humans or animals" -- fairly innocent, I won't use that in this round against you, just a matter of specificity I felt we were lacking.For the burden debate, since we both provided cases, again, the BoP should be split. How is there no BoP to the side that gave the first speech? I do not understand this, but you will find a loophole to allow yourself this and so on.Kritik: I didn't give a kritik. A kritik is basically attacking a fundamental assumption of the affirmative case as a means to negate, or a fundamental mindset, and so on. I didn't do that -- I provided you some critical literature (not kritikal literature) to see the world through the lens of a psychoanalytic mind. I didn't challenge the resolution at all, I didn't negate the resolution ... look at my case again, I affirmed the resolution claiming that the mind of the phallus is inherently harmful. Utilitarianism: Nah. Utilitarianism is such a defeated concept to look at the world through. Were most Germans okay with the Nazis coming to power in 1933, as they thought it would benefit the most? Of course. Were most Germans okay with Krystalnacht? It appears so - a few spoke out, but certainly not the majority -- the majority was given more power so this was a good thing.I ask you to just use common sense and go for the most good, not necessarily the most good for the most people. There's a fine distinction yet the distinction is important.Patriarchy: My opponent equates government mostly being run by men as to being dominated by men. He equates someone running for office meaning that they intellectually and politically are your 'owner' or are dominant above you, as is the case in the patriarchy, and so on. However, unless you can show that these people are actually dominating over us and are oppressing all over the rule of the fathers, I see no reason that correlation would entail causation. Put another way; just because there exist men as the leaders doesn't make the men patriarchal -- what if it is just chance? I know that the Congress has been invested in protecting women's interests in current times, how is this inherently patriarchal? I am never given a reason to prefer your interpretation of government over my interpretation of the phallus and the gun. He has no sources, simply analytics of the situation -- we can never verify what he is saying.Then, he goes on to say that a gun is simply a tool and taking it away does a few things: a. treats everyone as a mindless synchophant of the patriarchy, b. the same as massive rape of the populace, c. destroying the concept of independent thought. That's quite a large claim, and I'll tell you why the claim simply falls apart. I don't think my opponent has understood my case at all. I can summarise as such: guns are the representing the phallus, taking away the phallus or its representations are the 'castration complex' rooted deeply in the fear of the Father. Therefore, I claim, taking away guns frightens people foremost because it is the Father's 'castration complex' as Lacan coins (or was it Freud? I'll relook at my notes). Then, as the Father's power grows it has: 1. more patriarchy within society, 2. a supression of the Oedipus complex.His analysis is wrong. When the vast majority of people simply own a gun because of fear of the Father and his control over the people, that would be the very definition of patriarchy. I can give you some a card if you want saying that 3 times as many men own guns than women [1], but I think that even without this huge gap, a penis replacement being the main reason that we have guns is simply male-oriented within itself and is patriarchal. I don't treat people as mindless anythings -- I treat them as people that are afraid of their Fathers and thus have guns because of the castration complex ... I don't treat them as inferior and so on, I treat them the same -- however, I think that we need to take ourselves out of this Father-oriented mindset that we have so willingly put ourselves into.Then, he calls my proposal the massive rape of the populace. No comment - this is reducio ad absurdum at its finest ... I am not willingly raping the people, so how is this relevant to this conversation? I'd rather we talk about real world implications than accuse each other of supporting something so vile. And then he says that I destroy the concept of independent thought. Not so, I claim, banning guns isn't banning free though -- owning something is not the same as free thought. Lets say I ban murder -- am I banning free thought of the populace? No, I claim, because murder isn't a type of free thought. Let's say I ban owning a nuclear bomb -- banning free thought? No, for the exact same reason. And then as for your liberty analysis, I will touch on that later on.Oedipus: He drops this -- no matter what, flow this back to my side of the debate. He is doing the same as slavery I claim, he never attacks this - he only attacks patriarchy, but my Oedipus reasoning isn't the same as the patriarchy reasoning. This is dropped -- take this as a concession of this point.C1. CultureI give you, one again, the example of Nazi Germany: it was the culture of the Nazis to work the concentration camps and so on. Is banning them inherently bad? Of course not, I claim, culture does not supercede moral action! Just cross apply this example to this first contention, it is sufficiently either: 1. rebutted or 2. dismissed as not relevant.C4. Law enforcement and militaryThe conflation of law enforcement and protection is a simple one to make, however thinking that law enforcement exists to actually protect you and your family and so on is a fatally flawed idea. In the United States in the status quo, which the con world exists within, it has been shown through numerous court cases that police do not have to protect you from harm and so on -- that is not their duty! Their duty isn't to save life or whatever, so why give them this duty needlessly? You can protect yourself from crime with an alternative: reduce crime by bringing people out of systemic poverty and so on. In what Slavoj Zizek calls "Subjective Violence" (but I refer to as normal violence), there is always a systemic aspect of violence that is fueling it. If we solve for the systemic, we solve for the subjective -- we solve for all crime if we fulfill my counterplan! No need for guns and so on since there is no reason to have guns, for poverty is the cause of violent subjective violence.C2. Self defenseLet's analyse his source saying that there is a rampant illegal gun issue in the US [2] (which of course he decided to never link to). His source actually says sometihng else than he is claiming. He said there is this 93% of gun crime is by illegal guns. However, look to his source, and see that a significant smaller number of inmates were in prison for using illegal guns at the time of crime and so on than 93%, even if we account for the idea that it is possible that some may have committed more than one crime.The FBI reports that there were only 200 people that were actually defended against from the commission of a crime (self defense of someone committing a felony, say stealing and so on) [3]. These people could all be solved by my above counter-plan, 200 people is such a small number that it could just be an accident of the data and so on -- the specifics of my counterplan solve because tasers do the same good, but don't uphold patriarchy.C3. EconomyNo response -- my life is more important than a few dollars. Patriarchy causes wars, I don't think you losing jobs is more important than everyone losing their lives.C4. Not practicalSee Moti Mizrahi; it doesn't need to be practical, just ethical. It probably wasn't practical to try Nazis for war crimes, but we did it anyways because we had to.[1]. http://www.people-press.org...[2]. http://www.bjs.gov...;[3]. https://www.fbi.gov...