Zillman 15: status quo laws permit guns on campus. Extend Giroux 15

Kant

1. 
   Turns the NC– violence becomes the means of social relation which causes us to recede to the state of nature since individuals unilaterally assert their will over others, this outweighs since civil society’s a precondition to existence of rights, and there are infinite rights violation since nothing can be conclusively owned
   
2. 
   Turn the NC – governments reaffirm values that guns solve problems which permits murder which is not-universalizeable since you can not will everyone kills everyone, which is impossible since people can not kill if they’re dead
   
3. 
   Turns the NC – Kant requires we respect our own ability to rationally reflect and acknowledge other individuals since that’s the basis of our obligations, but gun culture replaces rational values with irrational ones
   

Extend Debrabander 15: guns in higher education reinforce control and prevent free discussion

1. 
   Turns the NC – the state must act as an omnilateral will since it must consistently gain the consent of individuals, but prohibition of protest prevents consent to the existence of the state
   
2. 
   Turns the NC – relationships between students and teachers are imbalanced and students and others are imbalanced since guns entail hierarchy. The powerful need to be regulated so they cannot rightfully abuse positions over those subject to them to maintain equal freedom. Coercion is when your circumstance requires adopting another’s purposes because of imbalanced positions, which guns on campus inherently entail, this outweighs – we only have property rights if there are no external restraints on the object
   
3. 
   Absolute property constraints are absurd; not ever being subject to another’s purposes could be achieved by any restrictive state system, which means the violation is nonunique. JULIUS²: If there’s a compelling rationale for property, it’s that property frees our pursuit of object-requiring ends from constraint by others’ choices. I’ve just claimed that this ideal of independent purposiveness is to be had by our all following laws that share out our access to resources on terms set independently of persons’ dispositions to grab or use those goods. When it comes to deciding which particular laws to follow in this spirit, the imperative of independence does not favor private property over any other detailed scheme of access to external means.
   

Extend Giroux 15: I solve by rupturing the military industrial complex by supporting gun control. You also concede that politicians aim to strike down gun restrictions to further their own means, so they use college students as means to an end.

Extend Difillippis 15: colleges aren’t magnets for mass-shootings, evidence disproves. This outweighs on probability - A. Mass murderers have emotional connections to locations they target, so gun laws would have no implication, B. Many mass-shooters are suicidal, so would have no consideration for whether or not they died. C. It’s empirical evidence rather than pure speculation. D. Colleges have up-to-date security systems regardless; someone who just wanted to kill maximum number of people would go somewhere like a park where there isn’t centralized security.

Extend Hemenway and Solnick 15: guns don’t promote safety – they’re rarely used for self-defense or to prevent sexual assault. This outweighs on probability – A. Most assaults are carried out by someone you know, accessing a gun when assault’s unpredicted is difficult, while people will more likely carry a weapon when they know they will commit assault. B. Criminals are more experienced gun users since it occupies a larger amount of their time. C. It’s an empirical study which does empirical comparison between usage. And, it outweighs – A. Scope – criminal gun uses are more frequent. B. Magnitude – criminals are often effective at carrying out crimes with guns, whereas a gun very rarely decreases injury. C. Reversibility – targets for abuse can use things like pepper spray to defend themselves which are similarly effective, but there’s minimal action that can be taken when an armed assailant threatens a victim.

1. 
   Terminal defense to the NC – you have no uniqueness since minorities are denied the right to carry handguns now, it also turns case - establishing a system of reciprocal limits on external freedom requires that entitlement to external objects of choice equally binds all agents – e..g a government that granted one citizen the right to own a house would not be a real government, so people can have no right to handguns in the status quo
   

1. 
   Current laws that grant right to guns aim to grant individuals coercive powers over others – vote aff to rectify power imbalances
   
2. 
   The NC isn’t liberating – abstract rights for equality that don’t take into account social positions of individuals contradict reality and further racism; we are humans before we are debaters – any ethical theory must solve for current imbalances in power
   
3. 
   T – stand your ground laws combined with the aff mean that handgun ownership intrinsically violates freedom of others by establishing extra-legal realms of domination, only the aff prevents unilateral assertions of power over others
   
4. 
   The status quo reinforces the state’s view of individual relationships as beyond regulation – one individual can unilaterally impose their will on others in private spheres of domination – since the state is established as an omnilateral will that binds all, existence of unilateral actors that can determine the ends of others is contradictory
   

NC

Rationality must include intersubjectivity---we are agents both in terms of who we are, but also in terms of our relationship to and recognition of others. Deriving obligation from purely self-reflection fails: a. phenomenology---it requires stepping away from yourself in order to evaluate yourself, begging the question if you’re still you, b. ontology--- rational agents do not act in a vacuum, morality needs to be about how we act in relation to others, c. normativity---you can only become aware of yourself if you already understand who you are, this is circular which rips theory of its normative value, d. ontology--- not all agents have the capacity for practical reason, meaning that not all moral actions can be motivated internally. The logical consequence is that we must aim to create an ethical community in which there is mutual recognition – the military industrial complex, isolationism and racism prevent mutual recognition.