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

Thank you autocorrect for agreeing to debate this topic with me. The forum posts that you have made show me that you are extremely intelligent and I hope that this is an interesting debate. I'd also like to thank uniferous for choosing the topic. My opponent and I have agreed that this round will be for arguments; the next round will be for rebuttals and the final round will be for counter rebuttals and a conclusion of the debate. So without further ado, I will begin with my arguments. Plan I'm am going to running the affirmative equivalent to a counterplan (ie. a plan). My plan will consist of 2 sub-sections. a) Over the period of 30 years we will gradually increase gun restrictions, this way the impact of an immediate change to a gun ban from the current system would be mitigated. b) After 30 years gun usage should be extremely restricted. At this point a change from the current point of restriction to a ban will be so small that the change will create minimal concern and anger. Furthermore there will be no major impacts to gun culture in the US. Since my counterplan ultimately leads to a gun ban it is still sufficient to fulfill my burden since my burden requires me to prove that guns should be banned and under my plan guns are still being banned, just over a long period of time. By introducing my plan it increases the feasibility of the plan as well as the fact that it reduces the negative response that would occur if a gun ban was immediately introduced at this point in time. Framework I’m going to begin by proving moral realism (which I have been researching since my last debate on the subject) as my metaethical framework. So now I will present my argument to prove objective morality. I will be using the ontological argument for moral realism by Michael Huemer, Professor in philosophy. His ontological argument for moral realism is as follows, (1) The probabilistic reasons principle (2) If we know that action X is objectively wrong, then we get a reason to not perform action X to be moral (3) Even if we don't know that action X is objectively wrong, it doesn't provide us a reason to *do* action X (4) There is some non-zero probability that moral realism is true (i.e. moral realism is possible) (5) It follows that, in order to not risk X being objectively wrong, we ought not to do action X (6) Also, we have a reason to avoid performing action X Action x is the action that we are trying to prove objectively wrong (in this case guns). The probabilistic reasons principle (PRP) is described by Huemer: “ [I]f some fact would (if you knew it) provide a reason for you to behave in a certain way, then your having some reason to believe that this fact obtains also provides you with a reason to behave in the same way." [9] P2 is a truism. P3 is also a truism. P4 is a truism. P5 may require further explanation so I’ll briefly talk about it. Since action X is an action that we think could be objectively wrong (since this is why we are testing it out in the ontological argument). Since it is debatable the consequences comparison is evident. If X is objectively wrong and we treat it as objectively wrong then we are correctly identifying it as wrong. If X is objectively wrong and we treat it as objectively right then we are are identifying it incorrectly. Ergo, since it is possible that X is objectively wrong then we ought to consider it as objectively wrong so as not to violate morality and moral principles. P5 means that C1 (P6) is true. Now that Moral Realism is affirmed I will move onto the normative ethics of my framework. This will be based on individualism, the ideology that prioritizes the moral worth of the individual [10]. The syllogism will work as the following: P1. The individual's opinion ought to be considered in society, ergo, you ought to agree to an individualist view. Laws must be in the best interest of the citizen. Voters ought to buy the individualist framework. P2. The individualist has the right to life and we should be prioritizing them (as per the framework). If I am able to prove that guns cause deaths and violate the needs of the individual then I fulfill my burden and fulfill the debate. C1. Provided that I am able to show that guns cause more deaths than it saves lives. You ought to affirm and thus presume Pro. The Murder Rate All we need to do is analyze this graph to understand that the murder rate via guns in the US is significantly higher than we need it to be. [1] The trend is evidence. In Japan there is a full gun ban [3](for citizens which coincides with the resolution) and Japan has the lowest gun related murders as shown on the graph. South Korea has ‘one of the most restrictive gun policies in the developed world,’ [2]. South Korea is the second least on the map. In Iceland guns are only allowed for target shooting and you need a special license for this. All other guns are strictly forbidden in all circumstances [4]. The list goes on and it surprisingly goes almost completely through the list in order from the most gun restrictions to the least. There are, of course, a view fluctuations but there are few. The correlation is clear, the countries the more restriction on guns, the less deaths. The countries with complete bans on citizens have gun deaths of extremely low quantity. The less guns, the less deaths. Furthermore, multiple reliable studies have shown that guns result in death. Harvard T.H Chan, School of Public Health, concluded from their studies, “a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.” [5] In the US there were 372 mass shootings, 64 of which were school shootings [6]. This ultimately means that babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, adolescents, adults and the elderly are being killed by guns. 13 toddlers accidentally killed themselves in 2015; 18 injured themselves; 10 injured other people and 2 killed other people. In the United Kingdom they have a complete gun ban for citizens, which is what I am affirming [7]. In the UK the youngest person to ever kill somebody in recorded history has been 12 [8]. In 2015 alone 2 toddlers killed other people. The comparison is notable, in one year two toddlers kill two people (as a result of guns) which is something that has never happened in the history of the UK (a country with guns banned). Accidents and Consequences 15,000 to 19,000 deaths are as a result of accidents in the United States [11]. Causing a gun related accident and being the person responsible means that you could suffer from mental health problems. Proceeding an accidental shooting with a gun, suffering from mental health problems is not uncommon [12]. By banning guns, you make virtually impossible to kill somebody accidentally since accidents are not committed by murderers who may have illegal guns, they are usually committed by people with legal guns who are law abiding citizens (hence why they suffer from mental health problems afterwards in most cases). Conclusion I have shown that moral realism exists and that individualism is the best perspective to view this debate upon. I have also shown the high death statistics caused by guns (which is a clear violation of individualism). Whilst I do have some more characters, I believe that I have said enough to support my side in the debate with the argument that I have presented. Ergo, you ought to vote in my favor. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro! Sources [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://murderpedia.org...[9] http://journals.cambridge.org...[10] https://en.wikipedia.org...[11] http://www.thedailybeast.com...[12] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...