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

Thanks to my opponent for offering this debate. I hope their our discourse will be productive and worthwhile. Introduction: I believe that an individual's right to the sole use of his or her personal property is a necessary extension of that individual's right to self ownership. To prevent someone from trading an item that he or she legally owns is to aggress against that person and deny the right to self ownership. Accepting the right to self ownership and behaving non-violently toward peaceful people are not metaphysically required, but belief in these principles is necessary for coherent political philosophy and existence in a civilized society. Using force to prevent someone from buying a weapon on the basis that they have not been deemed mentally capable by some arbitrary source is contrary to the basic principles of liberty. Arguments: 1) Justification of Self Ownership The moment that we begin to debate with someone, we concede that their consent to the outcome that we propose is relevant. The argument that libertarians typically use is that you cannot convince someone to be your slave: at best, you can convince someone to work for you for free. Someone cannot be convinced to do something involuntarily. Of course, that does not stop you from simply not engaging with someone and violating their rights at will. However, in doing so you have conceded that your capacity to engage in violence is the critical issue and not the validity of your position. This is philosophically bankrupt and it is an example of the barbarism that has made human history a tale of exploitation and slavery. It is incompatible with the proper goal and function of a culturally and technologically advanced society. You may justify such violence to yourself by saying that your aggression is for the greater good, but the moment you try to convince your victims of this you have fallen into a contradiction. This idea is inspired by Jï¿½rgen Habermas' discourse ethics. [1] I have tried to explain it in my own original terms, so it may not be a perfect representation of the actual theory. 2) Justification if Property Rights A human being does not float around in the vacuum of space; all of our actions are contingent on the physical world as it exists beyond ourselves. Our basic ability to move around is a use of the ground we walk on. Thus, a person's self ownership also encompasses their use of the objects on which their actions directly depend. If a person uses an object that is not already in the possession of someone else, it is their property until they relinquish their use of it. To steal from someone is to aggress against their self ownership; it is equivalent to an attack on their physical being. 3) Restricting the Trade of Guns Restricting a person who has come into the legitimate (by which I mean just, not legal) possession of a gun from trading it to another person in exchange for anything or nothing is a violation of the right to self ownership. The fact that you think a greater good may be achieved through this crime is irrelevant; the second you resort to force you have dismissed morality and decided that truth shall be decided by who has the most firepower. Napoleon Bonaparte said that in battle, God is on the side with the most artillery. This is a good military maxim but as a moral argument is it intentionally a joke. 4) Mental Illness Cannot Be Defined Objectively There is no uniform consensus in psychology about what mental illness is or what exactly constitutes a mental illness. [2] Who would decide whether or not someone is "insane" enough to justify taking away their right to own a firearm? A gun seller could require his customers provide evidence of mental stability from private psychological evaluation firm, but for a government to do this would be much different. The government would have to deem that the firm was objectively correct or they would be acting unjustly whereas a private individual would simply be exercising his right not to do business with a certain person. 5) Private Alternatives There is no shortage of non-coercive ways to prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who are not fit to have them. As stated above, gun sellers can require their customers to present evidence that they are qualified customers. There would be a great deal of pressure to instate such requirements: gun owners may only purchase their weapons from sellers who adhere to such rules and gun producers may only ship to those who won't put their products into the wrong hands. The pressure to do this comes from both a desire for safety and a desire to have a good reputation. Gun safety is important to most people, especially gun owners who are familiar with the associated risks, and even if the costs of making sure guns were kept in the right hands were privatized it is highly likely that the costs would still be met. 6) Preventing Gun Violence Is Impossible Studies estimate that the market value of illegal weapons trading is about $245 million. [3] It is true that some mass murders were committed by people who bought their guns legally, but there are a huge number of weapons being sold on the black market. The majority of gun violence is caused by relatively sane criminals and not by isolated attacks from lunatics. [4] It is virtually impossible to prevent dangerous people from getting weapons somehow. My opponent could propose increasingly more coercive policies, such as further restricting weapon ownership to reduce the number of available guns, but this only increases the use of violence against innocent people. The real answer lies in increased security, which can be funded privately and does not aggress against non-violent people. There is no ultimate answer to the problem of violence, but it does not lie in increased violence against innocent people in the name of protecting them. Conclusion: My opponent's goal is obviously reasonable, but his means of accomplishing it are unjust. Aggressing against people and taking their rights away is an ironic way to try to protect them. It is easy to see how labeling certain people as "mentally unfit" according to a government-enforced standard could be very dangerous, especially when no such standard is accepted in the science of psychology. People who sell and produce guns have an interest in making sure that guns are used safely. It should be their responsibility, and not the responsibility of uninformed bureaucrats who back up their proclamations with threats of force, to regulate the trade of firearms. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.havocscope.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...