Other than the exceptions outlined below, arms should not be regulated

R1: Self defense My opponent has completely missed the point of my argument here. I have proven that using a gun in self-defense is something that rarely happens. My data proves this by offering a study from the Harvard Injury Center that shows people claiming they were using a weapon in self-defense and instead committing a crime. This is brought up by my opponent, but he does not understand the full extent of my data. I also brought up that 5 criminal court judges measured the legality of these claims of self-defense and found that over 50% of them were illegal (1). The legality of these claims of self-defense shows that people are blind as to what qualifies as self-defense. I furthered this point, which remains unrefuted as of now, by showing the fact that for every justifiable use of a firearm in self-defense, there are 34 gun homicides (2). My opponent’s impact of a better armed public is reversed as people will instead use these weapons to kill others and justify crimes with “self-defense” even if it illegal. Next, my opponent brings up gun courses in schools to guarantee that people can use weapons effectively and protect themselves. This point is null since not only do these programs exist, but they are completely ineffective at teaching gun safety or use. Case in point, Eddie Eagle, the most widely used gun education program, is shown to be useless in real life situations. The American Academy of Pediatrics conducted a study that does provide evidence that students of these programs would perform well during a supervised roleplay, but, in real life situations they performed as If they had not participated in gun safety training whatsoever (3). Any program teaching children to fire at criminals or protect themselves would be ineffective as well since the definition of regulate means that children will not be able to use said weapon in training. Thus, my point still stands. R2: Liberty My opponent has proved my point indirectly. Specifically speaking, the 2016 election proves that the everyday constituent does have a voice that is significant. Not only were both Bernie Sanders and now president elect Trump both against the political system and wanted to “drain the swamp of Washington,” but, one of them won while another came close to the primaries. This shows that everyday people will be able to influence the government no matter how much of a corrupt, bureaucratic system is in place. My opponent peddles the idea of economic elites buying presidents and their policy, but this system existed since the beginning of lobbying and there was still significant change occurring from that time forward. Also, my opponent has not yet justified an armed insurrection of the government at this point, or why guns are the best solution to the problem of a corrupt government. My opponent even concedes that there are other ways to protect liberty besides guns that are peaceful and result in less losses of life, following my framework of lives mattering over anything else that has yet to be refuted. Even if it is “unlikely” that this were to past, realize that over 20 amendments were passed thus far and many people support this. In fact, the National Review in September of 2015 shows that a recent a 2013 Gallup poll finds 75% of Americans are in support of term limits. The kicker is that there were not party lines that support was divided by, it was bipartisan (4). Not only this, but the Princeton study my opponent has offered refutes itself by claiming that: “It turns out, in fact, that the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites (refer to table 2). Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from government…” (5) There is no quantifiable proof to show that business elites’ positions are any different than that of the people and is thus immeasurable. If people differed in opinion to those elites, then there would be a cut and dry case of corruption. However, it is not possible to determine if a president or congress member always votes a certain way to satisfy the people or business elites. R3: Straw purchases Yet again, my opponent misinterprets the resolution. Under the resolution, the tracking of weapons will not stop. Tracking does not prohibit people from buying or using a gun by itself, it is only when something in one’s criminal history prevents him/her from buying said weapon. In fact, it would be necessary to prove that someone was not a child or an escaped prisoner who are both barred from buying guns under the excluded cases my opponent brings up in round 1 of this debate. There would be no other way to determine if the people buying weapons are the demographics that my opponent excludes from purchasing weapons. Also, my opponent is not arguing the resolution, and has thus changed his advocacy to the post-fiat world. My opponent cannot determine his proposed change will ever happen since we are only debating deregulation of guns, not the tracking of weapons. Since my opponent shows through his contention on liberty that the government is full of elitism that prevents action through his Princeton study, there is little likeliness that his plan will come to fruition (5). R4: Black market My opponent links poverty to gun crime with no statistics whatsoever and then claims that ending poverty will end gun violence. I have 2 responses. A. Post-fiat world My opponent is basing this argument on possible future action. However, this is not guaranteed in Central America at all. In fact, since a lot of the governments in Central America are not on the best terms with the US due to past imperialism within the region, there is no guarantee that this could be influenced at all by the US. This was brought about due to fears of communism within Latin America creating a domino effect, toppling other democracies and replacing them with communism. As reported by Daryl Worthington of New Historian in April of 2015, we have since tried to overthrow the Cuban government and sanctioned it, helped a coup in Chile, and even illegally helped a military coup in Nicaragua in the Iran-Contra scandal (6). This type of meddling in the past made it so that that the Central American people distrust any US initiative in the region. In fact, Justin Lance of Ohio State University in October of 2007 lists the reasons that anti-Americanism is popular in Central America with 5 bullet points: 1) The failure of neoliberal economic reform to benefit large sectors of these societies and worsening economic inequality 2) Weak, corrupt political institutions 3) U.S. immigration policy, especially toward Mexico and Central America 4) U.S.-led intervention of Iraq in 2003 5) The continuing hegemonic position of the United States in relation to the region culturally, economically, and politically These points are the reasons that poor people in Central America support dictators who want to control the state through communism or dictatorship (7). These are dictators who are unlikely to put the people first and look toward cooperatives. Increasing presence of our military in Central America will only make the governments even more resistant to change and hate us more. B. Reducing poverty My opponent has not provided any evidence to explain exactly how and why these cooperatives will decrease poverty significantly. In fact, this was tried in foreign markets before and saw poor results. Puja Mondal of Your Article Library shows that lack of support and funding led to its failure (7). This factor would be even greater in Central America with its history of resisting the US and its policies. Thus, there would be no significant decrease of poverty with this plan. The fact of the matter is that cooperation is needed to decrease poverty in Central America, not imperialism. Even in the US, these are not foolproof companies. Even if there is a moderate effect on poverty, there is still a flaw in my opponent’s logic. Robert Muggah of Americas Quarterly in October of 2015 reports that despite economic growth being at its highest while poverty reaches the lowest it has been for years; violent crime has climbed from the 60s and 70s when the economic condition was even worse (8). Thus, even if there are some changes in the economy, there is no guarantee that violence will subside. Finally, my opponent blames the country in which weapons flow to. However, realize that he has not reduced my impact, and has refuted his last point by asking the US to intervene to decrease gun crime. I have proven the problems with intervening in Central America, meaning that there would be no decrease of poverty in these areas at all, negating the poverty point my opponent brought up. The countries in Central America may not be able to monitor their crime rate anyway, as the countries are experiencing the highest rate of crime in the world (8). Conclusion My points are extended as my opponent loses his/hers. My opponent has put too many of his points on whether his post-fiat plans will work and has neglected the status quo. Also, since my opponent has not provided a framework to view this debate through, we can also assume that lives are most important in this debate. So, when you weigh our points on said metric, there is a clear victory for the Con side. I urge a negative ballot. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...)Note: My opponent has brought up new arguments in the form of new advocacies (gun schools, military intervention etc.) that I had to respond to. Do not dock me for points on beringing up new arguments.Thank you Capitalistslave for this wonderful debate!