Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates

The premise and criterion for which a crime rate probability can be judged relies on subjective moral interpretation; the ability for an individual to make his/her own decision based on subjective ethics limits our jurisdiction to a few points of consideration that my opponent must acknowledge as his instigating viewpoint of pro on this resolution: 1> That when a crime rate is being judged for its probability, we refer to probable as being more likely than not; the subjective moral fluctuations that differ from individual to individual disallows and excludes the possibility of a normative moral nature. Thus we consider all individuals capable of committing crime with their inherent and intrinsic intentions; our preventative steps and measures that we take by limiting accessibility of handguns and firearms only goes to prevent outcomes that are inevitable as explained by the framework of meta-ethics. 2> The specifications of a regulation, is, as I agree with my opponent, unnecessary and extraneous to the point such that we still must take into thought the same thread that my opponent so stolidly ascertains: That we look to the base and cause of a matter when making the jurisdiction on a subject. Indeed, this not only does not go to supplement his case or contentions in any form, but instead serves as a turning point for which criterion on a moral relativist premise can be judged, thus actually affirming my case and points. Because individuals are intrinsically capable of subjective judgment, as represented by the specific theory of epistemic normativity, we see that a regulation works toward a moral normative in order to limit certain individuals underage or of other concerns to acquire firearms. _________ Moving on to his rebuttal and the overall framework: 1> All of his rebuttals to my overall structure and points concerns itself with a fact with which it is not only interprative on an individual context, but is not an objective fact in any way. For example, his first and second rebuttal (1)/(2) goes on to implement his view that the individual is the one who decides to commit the crime. We can obviously find the fundamental flaw that becomes apparent after merely observing such a statement without careful inspection: That this completely supports the fundamental metaphysical statements that I have been implementing throughout my case and framework. Indeed, specifically because the individual deciding to commit the crime causes it, we see that because of differentiating and subjective moral values of different people, what is right or wrong does not hold a benchmark for which clear distinguishing can be done. Thus any measure that we take to prevent such easy and facilitated accessibility of firearms only caters to the presupposed fact that any individual can and is capable of crime; preventing accessibility only decreases probability by its inherent definition. 2> Furthermore, his statement that "true, everybody has the capability to commit crime, but that doesn't inherently make them likely to do so" is a logical fallacy and contradiction in of itself. The capability of an individual to commit crime justifies the inherent probability that exists that he/she will allow themselves to commit such a crime under their moral justification framework. We look to a basic value as an example--- Deontological Justification: S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p while it is not the case that S is obliged to refrain from believing that p. [11] Indeed, we see in this a prime example that the justification for an action exists in the intrinsic capability for an individual to do so; the probability in of itself fluctuates with such an aspect. Thus we can clearly see that none of pro's refutations to my arguments are adequate enough to hold any ground in the context of this debate, whether justified on a meta-ethical premise, or even a logical premise. For this, all of my arguments may be extended across the flow. _________ Issues with pro's point construction: Again, my opponent fails to come to terms with the basic and fundamental truth that he disposes of when he makes his point (1) as well as in his overall framework as well. Catering directly to his first point, the disposition of an individual who is able to commit crime to do so is not affected by the existence of any form of legal restriction on firearm usage. Instead, as his own case implements, and here would be a direct quote, "It is not the weapon that causes the crime, it is a person deciding to commit the crime that causes it. " Even in his own values and principles that he uses in his inherent point construction, we view a contradictory logical flow that goes against his inherent credibility for contentions. Indeed, having easier accessibility of firearms/handguns will not only decrease crime rates, but for the values concerning ethical subjectivity that I have shown, will only aggravate and increase probability of crime rate. 2> The Pro envisions a hypothetical situation in order to supplement his case for further argument; he also uses studies and permit reliability statistics in an effort to provide a better advocating point for his case. However, we come into a few primary obstacles when first observing such points. The perpetration of a crime, as in the hypothetical situation my opponent so ardently believes in, depends on the existence of the firearm/handgun itself. Looking once again to the main cause of such crimes, the ethical subjectivism is apparent in criminals in general. Accessibility of firearms on the other hand, when decreased, will also serve to eliminate or substantially lessen probability of would-be criminals coming into possession at the source of the issue. Allowing for firearms to be advocated to support the whimsical argument for self-defense in situations of crises can be completely eliminated when accessibility, the underlying issue is observed. There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. [4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths. [6] Evidence in of itself only serves as a pivotal point on which we can observe fatalities concerning firearms and how perpetration is wholly dependent upon the acquisition of the firearm at the source of the issue. Disallowing accessibility eliminates such a concern to eliminate my opponent's framework itself. His point (7) bases itself upon the presupposed assumption that there is a direct correlation between the two clauses of the evidence; yet we can clearly see that an average murder rate is based off of a multi-faceted reason bank for which individuals decrease or increase with certain fluctuations. Thus there will be no looking to for such an evidence for certain advocation of his contention. Further points of consideration: The epistemic normative as demanded with penalty of irrationality by all individuals in our societal and moral framework mandates that ideas and moral values as well as principles must be subjective. Without having such subjective aspects, rationality would be compromised in of it's own concept. By saying that individuals who have the capability to commit crime and perpetrate such an act are not extremely likely to do so goes against our rational framework on a whole as well as even the resolution itself. We look to the probability of crime rate decreasing; having easier accessibility ot individuals with a subjective moral conceptual paradigm only allows for aggravated increasing of crime, as I have fully pointed out through my refutations and points. We thus look to such a logical contradiction that my opponent is forced to support in his points.