THBT gun ownership should be considered a privilege rather than a right

FRAMEWORKThe opposition has, as of now, consented to the negative utilitarian criterion for the success of this resolution. With that consented, I shall attempt to refute the opposition's arguments, and then extending my arguments. However, before that, I shall like to remind that the BoP of Side Opposition is to prove that Side Opposition's case both affirms gun rights and negate the need for guns being a privilege (which is a logical corollary for the affirmation of the value of gun rights), whose criterion is that of negative utilitarianism.The opposition also demands a policy. Although this is a value debate, it is also in some respects a policy debate. Hence, I shall present a brief policy here. The policy is the followings: the gun-owner will go psychological and technical training via authorized agents who are the government or represent them. The agents then reevaluates the gun-owner's crime record, and if this test fails (recognized psychopath, not enough handling skills, record of theft etc.), the gun-owner does not receive his gun.REBUTTALSa.) Gun Ownership is a Basic RightI shall refute this argument from two grounds: (a) a purely logical ground, where the opposition has to ultimately prove that the status quo is the ideal status, and (b) even if it were a basic right, it does not affirm the criterion that is given. However, I shall like to object upon a ground of internationality: the US Constitution only applies to the citizens of the United States of America, and not citizens half-way across the world, like me. Even the opposition recognizes it, when they stated that "[making guns a privilege] is taking away rights given to Americans".The substantiation of this is an enaction of the "is-ought" fallacy. The opposition has yet to prove why this state of affairs is the ideal state of affairs. The opposition says that "I have nothing to add to this argument" apart from restating the 2nd Amendment. However, the opposition seems not to understand the concept of freedom: freedom is not the ability to own a gun. Freedom is to not be oppressed by some unjust master: even the 2nd Amendment, which side opposition seems to revere so much, states that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". By repealing the 2nd Amendment (and making guns a privilege), we would not be taking away any freedom whatsoever. We would be taking away only an obsolete form of keeping freedom. [1]Secondly, the opposition's case on this still remains invalid, as it fails to satisfy the negative utilitarian criterion. The opposition, because of the enaction of the "is-ought" fallacy, still fails to show why the current state of affairs is the ideal state of affairs. Hence, this argument cannot stand in such a debate as ours.b.) Concealed carry reduces crimeThis argument shall be systematically deconstructed, as it is the most surprising (and, unsurprisingly, least empirically verifiable) argument in the whole of the opposition's case. I shall be refuting these points on many grounds.Firstly, the model the opposition bases his argument on is called the rational model. This states that humans are rational actors, and shall act rationally. However, this theory has many limits. As always, the best "choice" is mandated by the circumstances. The rational choice theory fails to see that the "best choice" may be connected with emotional moods, which may influence the impartiality assumed in the theory. [7]The opposition says that "concealed guns" decrease violence. The opposition does present some formidable statistics. However, that does not prove that "concealed guns" actually reduce crime rates. I do think that this is a correlation-causation. The United States has been spending 225% more money on police than it has in 1982. [4] Apart from this, from 2004 to 2008, there has also been a 5% increase of sworn active police. [5] There are many others that effect the increase/decrease of crime rates that shall not be discussed here. Perhaps this might have been one of the reasons why crime is going down in the United States.Apart from this, the right to carry (RTC) actually increases crime. Although side opposition attempts to present statistics to recognize a nation wide issue, RTC has been associated with a 8% increase in aggravated assaults, with an increase of 33% in the totality of those who used guns in such assaults. [2] Rape rates in states with the RTC has been increasing constantly. For example, in Arizona, an RTC state, there has been a ten times increase of rape cases from 1960 to 2013 even though the population only increased by six times the amount. [3] This might be because of the fact that the introduction of guns into even a minor issue might lead it to a seriously fatal issue. Apart from this, right to carry would also impel criminals to act faster and in a more violent manner. [6]c.) People kill peopleThis argument is another claim that the opposition tries to make; however, this is done without much relevance in the debate. In this refutation, I shall analyze the contradictions presented here, and attempt to show why this argument is actually an argument affirming the baseline of side proposition.Side opposition argues that the only way to "stop" psychopaths, like Adam Lanza, from attaining a gun is to deny him access to a firearm in the first place. Note the contradictory nature of this argument to the Second Amendment case. The Second Amendment, accordingly to the interpretation of the opposition, applies to "the People", including those who are mentally disabled. Apart from this, if it is indeed possible to restrict rights, then it is no longer a right, but a privilege. Moreover, the opposition says that this policy "seriously harms those who use guns responsibly". This is not so: the policy here would be easily consented to by those who use guns responsibly, as their firearms won't be taken away. Once again, the opposition's arguments have been showed to be (a) fallacious and strawman'ed, (b) false and empirically unverifiable, and (c) contradictory and actually supports side proposition's case.Extensionsa.) HondurasThe opposition talks about "we". Who is this "we" that the proposition is referring to? We come back, again, to this model of internationality vs. locality. Are you saying that the United States is the only nation where gun rights are a huge issue? Nevertheless, I shall come back to this later. I shall here be responding to the case that gun control is not the only reason why Honduras experiences huge crime problems.The opposition states that gun rights are not the only source of problem in Honduras. This is undeniably true, but of course, to an extent. When 85% of all homicides in Honduras occurs with a gun that is very likely to be illicit, however, there must be some talk about gun control. The opposition seems to argue that there are many other factors that contribute to Honduras's murder rates. However, the opposition seems here to be suggesting that Honduras should keep the current state of affairs. i.e. their should be no change whatsoever in matters of guns.However, let us see the state of affairs from two-side: one under side proposition’s policy, and one under side opposition’s. Side opposition would allow these gangs to retain their guns as it is “a fundamental right” that these gangs have. The opposition would do exactly nothing. Examples where this policy has been implemented is also not limited within Honduras. The best example would be the United States. The opposition says that the United States can "handle guns better than Honduras". Oh yes, and that is why among the developed countries, the United States has the highest murder rates. [9]Let us see what side proposition’s side will do.Side proposition will not allow these gangs to keep these AK-47s. Side proposition would like to remind the audience that successful gun schemes in Australia, where the Australian government implemented a self-loading gun ban. AK-47s are illegal for civilian ownership, and rightly so. The MS-13 massacre in Honduras, even with the horrid government that Honduras has. If the opposition asks for any empirical proof of this, one should be informed of the many massacres that happened in Australia, pre-’96. The Port Arthur Massacre happened when a man with an AR-15 (the civilian equivalent of an M-16, which was bought and obtained legally) stormed into the popular tourist place, killing 28 and wounding much more. However, since the ’96 gun legislations, there has been no massacre of this sort (when a legal handgun was used in a massacre). [8]CONCLUSIONThe opposition has dropped two of my arguments, whilst making an is-ought fallacy and presenting claims that are empirically unverifiable. The opposition has localized this debate, which is highly unfair (and impossible, as the opposition has accepted the Honduras case to be valid in this debate). The opposition attempts to refute the usage of Honduras, but (a) has failed due to the locality of his rebuttals (WE LIVE IN MERIKA yo!), (b) presents the fact as government problems and not problems of gun laws (this I have refuted, and will continue to do so), and (c) has ignored gun controlled nations which have been successful. The resolution is affirmed!CITATIONS[1] http://www.txstate.edu...[2] http://phys.org...[3] http://www.disastercenter.com...[4] http://blogs.reuters.com...[5] http://www.bjs.gov...[6] http://www.nber.org...[7] http://et.worldeconomicsassociation.org...[8] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)[9] http://www.bbc.co.uk...