In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned

This will be a Lincoln Douglas style debate. First round is presenting case, and so on and so forth In spite of background checks and waiting periods, Christopher Harper-Mercer purchased a handgun, and on October 1st of last year, systematically executed his Christian classmates at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. This disrespect for human life should not be tolerated. I therefore affirm Resolved: In the United States, Private Ownership of Handguns Ought To Be Banned. Before I begin, I would like to offer a few definitions to add clarity to this round. Private Ownership: being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body (Collins English Dictionary) Handgun: "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having: a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)."S10; (ATF) The Value Today Will Be Deontology, the theory of duty formulated by Immanuel Kant. In this theory, he claimed that actions are morally wrong if they are inconsistent with the status of a person as a free rational being, and only those acts that further people as free and rational beings are morally right. Therefore, the goal of justice is that we all have an absolute duty to avoid acts that treat people as a means to some other end and to perform acts that affirm people as ends themselves This value should be preferred on a basis of respect for life. Human life is the precondition for all values attributed to persons and has been referred to as "an almost absolute value in history." The need to protect human life is regarded as basic, constitutive elements of the moral life of any society. Essentially, Kant"s theory holds life to the highest regard, making it the paramount goal of this debate. The Criterion Today Will Be The Categorical Imperative, the mechanism that Kant formulated to establish moral rules. The imperative consists of two pillars. 1) Act so that you can at the same time will your maxim should become a universal law, and (2) Act so that you treat humanity, both yourself and others, never merely as a means, but always as an ends. This introduces a test of universality to be used when assessing the moral correctness of an agent"s action. Simply put, we must weigh the round on whether or not each side can achieve the absolute standard of treating people as people, not as a step to a further objective. By using the categorical imperative, we can outline that the correct moral judgement of this debate would be to ban private ownership of handguns, as outlined in 2 contentions Contention 1: A Lack of Handgun Bans Is Inconsistent With The Categorical Imperative. Subpoint A: The United States Embodies Militarism There isn"t any objection to the fact that the United States is the greatest military power in the world. While this comes with some benefits, the consequences are disastrous. As a country and society, we have become engulfed in militarism, defined by David Kinsella as disposition to"employ military over non-military means of conflict resolution."Because gun ownership represents a disposition to employ violence, it perpetuates this militaristic mindset. Carl Boggs elaborates, writing that "Due to decades of conflict, foreign and domestic, the United States has become the hub of global violence, gang warfare, domestic violence, spontaneous outbursts of youth violence like the one at Columbine High School, and a mass media saturated with images of violence and bloodshed. Linkage between military and civilian forms of violence has come to play in politics, the economy, culture, media, and everyday life since the brutally violent culture has been ingrained into the people of the United States. People are taught to behave like those who are most respected in society, and the military is at the top of that pecking order in America. Politicians put the military on a pedestal while the media downplays their atrocities Due to this, American citizens are think that the way to resolve a conflict is by force, or that knee-jerk military action. If governmental elites appear as regular purveyors of death and destruction, an ethos of violence can be expected to develop as ordinary people follow the lessons taught by the power structure. As a result, a quarter-century of war has polluted American politics, culture and media with the glorification of military violence, and the normalization of everyday violence waged against black youth, immigrants, and others considered disposable, which ultimately promotes individual and small-group violence. Essentially, we"ve become so socialized into a culture that values violence as a solution that we view attack as the primary means of conflict resolution. Our foreign affairs and violent interventions have corrupted Americans to believe in the concept of "us v.s. the world", which has resulted in heightened rates of homicide, domestic violence, and aggression throughout society. Handgun ownership only contributes to this Subpoint B: Handgun Ownership Exacerbates Militarism Handguns are commonly associated with defense, and as a result contribute to violence in society. When first developed, according to Historian Michael Bellesiles, Samuel Colt inventor of the handgun had hit on the perfect weapon for gun culture. His revolvers were inexpensive, fired several rounds quickly, negating the need for skill, and we easy to conceal. In short, they were intended for personal use in violent situations. Unable to discover demand for this weaponry, Colt created one. He engraved his guns with heroic scenes, such as a man protecting his wife and children against a pack of savages, armed only with a Colt revolver. We still see this disposition associated with handguns today. As a matter of fact, protection, according to PEW research center, is now the reason that handgun ownership is so common, and as a result, society has become more militarized. Shootings like the one at UCC are symptomatic of a society engulfed in fear, militarism, a survival-of-the-fittest ethos, and a growing disdain for human life. As the public collapses into these individualized values of a war hungry culture and the lure of private defense, American society flirts with forms of irrationality that are at the heart of every-day aggression and the withering of public life. Handgun ownership only sustains this. According to Dr. Phyllis F. Agran, "For the adolescent who has grown up in our "gun culture," the handgun is all too often seen as the quick solution to conflict, and there has been increased incidence of handgun suicide and homicide among adolescents, ages 15-24." The violent connotation of handguns was further confirmed by psychologist Craig A. Anderson, who found that the mere presence of a firearm primes aggressive behavior. Guns in particular, due to their association with violent behavior, reinforced through common experiences in movies, television, and front-page stories, are linked closely with aggression-related concepts. .This militarism in itself does not respect human beings, and as shown by the evidence, handgun ownership only supports this mindset. It views lives primarily as a means to security, not as ends themselves. We therefore have a universal obligation to oppose this dystopian mindset as I will outline in my second contention. Contention 2: Handgun Bans Are Consistent With The Categorical Imperative As established by the prior contention, militarism has pervaded our concepts of security and defense. To adequately address this, we need to begin combating this idea, which begins with instituting a ban on handguns. Levi Asher writes on the subject stating that The world remains war-torn, and many Americans believe the country is surrounded by military threats. This has led to "muscling up" against all possible threats, a practice that has gotten badly out of hand. Our nation muscles up with big weapons, and the people muscle up with guns. There must be a psychological tie between hysterical militarism and hysterical gun violence, and American paranoia caused by a perception of constant global warfare must be a subconscious cause of our obsession with guns. Militarism is gun violence. Look to the example of Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, who went on an armed rampage, all because they had an idea they felt they should take up arms for. The lesson to be learned from this is is that action needs to taken to combat the militarism in society. While taking away handguns will not ultimately solve this issue, it is clearly the most crucial step in doing. Reid Rusonik elaborates, The symbolism of coming together to say we will do everything possible to eliminate the means by which our precious young are destroying each other would send a powerful message that we do think these young men have great worth. We really don't have to live with handgun violence. It does not have to be part of life. We can evolve past it. Judge, what we can take from this is that a handgun ban will provide a remedy for the issue of militarism in the United States. To ultimately achieve respect of persons, we need to put people in a position in which their respect as persons is acknowledged