Winter Tourney: Gun Rights

It's unfortunate that my opponent did not post rebuttals, but nonetheless, on with the show!In this round, I will:1. Demolish Pro's framework (Following the law), and urge that the topic be viewed through a moral lens (according to the values of equal respect and concern).2. Reiterate the reasons pro-gun policies do not enhance self-defense.3. Minimize the impacts of "gun culture" (because it was not quantified by Pro). I will also show that this is irrelevant when we're determining whether gun ownership is a right.4. Minimize the impact of gun restrictions on the economy. I will again show that this is irrelevant when we're determining whether gun ownership is a right.5. Show that the number of guns is not a relevant objection to either gun rights or a gun ban.Remember that to win I need only show that gun ownership is not a right.Breaking--or at least, changing--an unjust law is rightPro argues that the existence of the 2nd Amendment itself somehow argues for the existence of gun rights. In a legal sense, he's right--currently, in US law, the second amendment is a "trump" over utilitarian calculations of public good. But it would make no sense to be debating what legal rights we have--it would be like if we debated "Due Process" Rights and Pro immediately turned to the Constitution and said "Hah, the 5th/14th amendments say we have that right; I win!"But there's a better objection, too: The law is obviously not necessarily equivalent to what is right, per my framework. Where it is wrong, it should change, for example through passage of a Constitutional amendment. I don't need to show the counterplan is viable, only that we obviously aren't debating what the law is, but what it should be. What it should be, to paraphrase Hume, has nothing to do with what is unless there's some moral reason why they're connected.Prefer my framework of equal respect and concern, which actually addresses the rightness/wrongness of the issue at hand.Self-defenseThe stats that show guns are used for self-defense are taken from a world in which guns are used for offense as well. As I showed last round, there's little correlation between guns and crime prevention--having more guns does not make your country safer, and in some cases (especially the US) may make it much more dangerous. Guns must demonstrably enhance your self-defense (your ability to stop a crime from being committed against you) for there to be a "right to bear arms". According to the NIJ, "467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011" (https://www.nij.gov...), which means that guns reduced the ability of 467,321 people to defend themselves in one year. This is far, far higher than the 75,000 Pro estimates defend themselves with a gun per year. Of course, it's ludicrous to assume all those people would not have been victimized were it not for a gun, but given the insanely high crime rate in the US, guns are clearly helping criminals more than they are helping victims.What is a right?Before I talk about culture and economics, it's worth returning to a point in my framework: "As Ronald Dworkin notes in Taking Rights Seriously, rights are 'trumps', meaning that a right is something that prevents a government from compelling its citizens to do something (for instance, forfeit their firearms),even if that government is serving the public good by doing so." This means that utilitarian arguments cannot demonstrate that gun ownership is a right. It is not enough to say "banning guns hurts the economy, so it is a right". There must be a further connection to some moral premise. Pro does not provide that, and so he cannot possibly show in these two points that gun ownership is a right.Gun culture, boo-hooPro's argument boils down to "If we ban guns, some people will be sad." He doesn't tell us how many people will be affected, and he doesn't tell us how they'll be affected. This point proves literally nothing, and it also has very weak ties to the resolution--saving lives (which banning guns would do) is far more valuable than making a few people sad. It's also worth noting that most people who argue for firearm bans specifically exempt the hunting/sports weaponry Pro talks about, especially in the US (see https://newrepublic.com... a striking example of someone arguing the contrary, and you'll notice how against the normal "gun ban" language it is).The economy, which would be the one decent objection if it were relevantI won't contest that gun manufacturing adds jobs and contributes to the economy. I will contest what that means, and its actual impacts.First, it does not mean that a gun ban will cause $33 billion to simply poof out of existence. This follows pretty easily from the definition of "contribute" in economics, and we've established that a "gun ban" typically excludes hunting rifles. Note that I did so in my "The Right to Arm Bears" section.Second, and more importantly, you must weigh human lives against the economy. Guns kill people. In the US, which we've both accepted as the reference point for a gun ban, they kill a lot of people, and make people less safe, as I've shown. Again, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011, while Pro estimates only 75,000 per year defend themselves with guns.Third, the "black market" objection is so frivolous (because there is no source) that I need not address it. Altogether, this isn't a terrible point when it comes to showing utilitarian impacts of a gun ban. But, again, it does not prove that there is a right to bear arms.Waste of time, or, I can write numbers too!600,0005343,291,023Let's say these are all numbers of guns in different countries. Clearly, the bigger numbers make it harder to keep track of all guns for logistical reasons. But it doesn't make it impossible. Enter Australia.Australia instituted a mandatory gun buy-back program, and it worked. Gun crime rates fell 60% in the decade after it was introduced (https://www.washingtonpost.com...); over 600,000 guns were destroyed (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com...). Buybacks have generally worked everywhere they've been implemented at a national level (https://en.wikipedia.org...)."They can't check over 300 million guns" is a bare assertion; it means nothing, treat it as nothing.ConclusionPro provides no convincing reason that a right to gun ownership exists. His utilitarian arguments cannot justify the language of rights, and guns clearly do not enhance self-defense. His appeals to the law fall flat because the law is not the arbiter of right and wrong--equality of respect and concern is the final arbiter.Guns increase crime and reduce the ability of people to defend themselves by increasing the capabilities of criminals. Banning them is possible, and has reduced crime wherever it has been tried.Guns do not protect the fundamental rights of equal respect and concern, and there is therefore no right to them.