Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates

I once again appreciate my opponent's devotion to this debate, and all arguments he has proposed. Preface: The framework and thrust of my contentions and points focuses mainly upon the basic and fundamental objective fact that, as my opponent as PRO has also conceded, the intrinsic cause provides the basis for which we provide jurisdiction. Yet the fact also stands that my opponent fails to provide ANY form of adequate justification for how such a correlation between handguns/firearms and crime rates may be invalid. Indeed, we find that the basis for his case and refutations rests upon the fundamental value and premise that my framework is based off in part, off of the probability that contributes directly to the cause of such an issue. In retrospective, not only have I provided sufficient grounds for which the plausibility of such an argument and principle is sound, but also proven that the probability of crime is wholly and mainly dependent upon the factor of weapon accessibility; it is characterized by our inability to obtain 'a posteriori' knowledge about the motives of an individual. Thus our main method of providing for tangible premises on which crime rate may be decreased looks to the intrinsic and fundamental value of 'PROBABILITY', which PRO fails to comprehend the significance of in the context of this resolution. Such a value provides the basic grounds for which we see whether or not crime rate may be established to increase or decrease; actions on our part as a social or individual whole influence yet just this value. His assertion that probability in of itself is erroneous as it does not provide an actual correlation with actual occurrences can be immediately thus seen to be logically fallacious and contradictory not only to the context of this debate and resolution, but to the principles of actions themselves. PRO's sole refutation that as my framework is based off of probabilities that correlate with crime rates is not sufficient enough to provide tangible relations with actual occurrences can thus be seen as inherently invalid as well as logically fallacious in its accusation. As I have thus provided the grounds for which PRO's refutations falls sadly short of achieving what is necessary for him to achieve his burden of proof, as well as providing for the refutation of his only rebuttal, we can thus provide jurisdiction based off of this inherent fact. ____ 'Knowledge' Now recall that my argument concerning such a core value is the basis for the decisions that we make in order to decrease crime rates. My justification relies upon the intrinsic fact that 'a posteriori' knowledge, or such knowledge obtained by experience or by hindsight is not available to our social framework when judging motives of individuals; my opponent's sole refutation lies in such a sentence: "While we do not have the advantage of analyzing the future from the perspective of hindsight, we can apply lessons learned from the past to future expectations." Yet when we do put this under observation, it becomes immediately clear that it is a CIRCULAR argument that not only does not achieve his premises for justification, but is in truth, erroneous itself. Indeed, such an argument is explicitly asserting that we can depend upon our foresight to make judgmental principles about the motives of individuals. Yet clearly this is absurd, by any standard of logical or even tangible justification; foresight is not an aspect that is available to our society when we make such jurisdictions of motives, which makes this argument truly fallacious in construction. As PRO asserts that there is not strictly a probability that a person will commit a crime, this once again provides us with the grounds for which we can fully ascertain that the validity of his arguments themselves may be questioned; this undermines the very definition of 'probability'. Not only has PRO failed to provide adequate justification for which we can provide plausible belief, but also has implemented his case with fallacious arguments that have no correlation with the context of this resolution. Again, PRO reinstates his bold yet contradictory claim that we have already established an adequate set of regulations to keep handguns out of the "hands of citizens who have shown themselves to be irresponsible." Once again, and not surprisingly, we find the direct correlation between this and my points concerning our impossibility for foresight, which is the dependent factor for which crime rates depend upon. Indeed, preventing previous criminals from accessibility will not only fail to address the spectrum of crime, but also neglect individuals who are to become criminals. The premises for such a point is in direct correlation with my framework concerning 'a posteriori' knowledge as well as probability; thus we find it once again invalid in plausibility. PRO provides us with a statement for which we may see into the validity and the framework itself of his case: "It is clear that having a handgun doesn't change a person's propensity toward violence or crime. If that were the case, we would expect to see a higher percentage of police killing and robbing than ordinary citizens." Interestingly enough, we find that accessibility of a handgun/firearm provides the grounds for which probability of crime may be perpetrated increases drastically; looking at this from any perspective, whether it may be logically or subjectively, we can immediately see that this is not only a non-sequitur, but also provides absolutely no justification for the basic principle for which values are based: 'Probability'. Even so, I would like to provide a point of consideration for his example: the public itself greatly exceeds the police in number; the crime rate, as it is dependent upon the factors such as number, accessibility, and numerous other aspects, takes in this fundamental point and acts upon it to be distorted by PRO in his favor. The police force itself dedicates it to legalized ventures for which they work to exterminate crime; the weapons that are utilized merely serve as methods for which they may eradicate problems that may arise in case of danger. Not only is such an example false on a social context, but also is contradictory in its composition. Now referring to his piece of evidence; I have already pointed out in my LAST case that such a statistic only provides for the narrow range of murders, which not only do not provide for the full spectrum of the 'crime' as specified in the resolution, but also does not apply to crime in general on a social context. PRO's study by Kleck and Gertz showing that guns are used 2.5 million times a year to stop crime merely goes to once again address and supplement my fundamental values and points that intrinsically state that such crime that must be stopped must be looked to for their causes in eradicating it. Extremely easy accessibility of handguns/firearms only aggravates such crime rates, making it further necessary for guns to be used to stop crime. Such a circuit not only does not provide adequate justification for his points, but his case in general. It provides NO correlation with the fundamental values of this debate, and thus it may be disregarded when providing jurisdiction. ____ Conclusion: Through all of my refutations as well as points, I have not only provided sufficient and adequate justification for which crime rate may be aggravated in the presence of easier accessibility, but also provided complete grounds for which all of PRO's points may be disregarded due to their inherently fallacious and contradictory nature. Looking back to the flow of this debate, we find that PRO has failed not only to refute adequately my points concerning knowledge that constitutes our decisions, but also that PRO has completely failed to provide sufficient arguments concerning my points for probability, which is a key issue. Looking to thus, I strongly urge a CON vote.