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

FRAMEWORK Today, I shall be presenting a framework to this debate, before moving onto presenting my three constructives which would eventually affirm the baseline, which is the following: guns cannot be a right, as that create a dangerous society and other philosophical implications. Let me paint a picture in your mind: picture a nation, where gun ownership is a right, rather than a privilege. Gangsters have guns in large quantities. Those who are psychopaths have notions of killing people: when guns are a privilege, these psychopaths do not have gun. When guns are a right, these psychopaths do. Imagine that situation: an unsafe world, where murder rates are high, where gang-warfare is serious, where murders are norm. You have just imagined a situation similar to that of Honduras. This case shall be substantiated in the constructives. This is a value debate. Henceforth, a criterion (for success and the words “right”+”privilege”) will be needed. The criterion for measuring the success of this resolution shall be measured by a certain amount of negative utilitarianism, where the least harm is done to the fewest amount of people, that this resolution has caused. Note that this debate is not about outlawing private ownership of gun: this debate is about the future ownership of gun lying in the hands of those who are capable.’ Guns shall be a privilege when the government tests the gun owner for mental stability, familiarity with the weapon etc. Guns shall be a right when the government monitors guns, yet does not commit any psychological and skill testing whatsoever. A license is not needed when guns are a right: a license is needed when guns are a privilege. The government is also not the only third party in this case. The BoP of the opposition side is to do the following: side opposition must prove that firearms as rights (instead of privilege) causes the least harm to the people. Side opposition also needs to show that gun privilege causes more deaths and henceforth harm. Side proposition, meanwhile, needs to show that privilege gun-ownership laws, no matter how lax, how harsh, still produces less harm than the BoP of the opposition. We are also talking about the principle, not the policy. We are not law-makers, but debaters. CONSTRUCTIVES a.) Gun Rights are Fatal Gun rights have been proven to be fatal. Because of the high prevalence in guns in such countries, guns are often used in many ways other than that of self-defense. In the United States alone, 31,000 cases of gun violence has been recorded by the USPD. 606 cases were unintentional. 11,000 were murders, and 19,000 of these are suicides. The United States has the 2nd most guns per Capita, and ultimately, a relatively high firearm-related death rate of 10 per 100,000 citizens. [1] This places the United States on the top 20 countries with the most firearm violence in the world. But let us expand our wings. And we all know the dictation of the 2nd Amendment: "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." [2] In 2004, MS13, a multinational gang, massacred 28 people in Honduras. Honduras is the most violent and unsafe country in the world. Whilst the US had a mere 10, Honduras has a huge number of 60 per 100,000. Honduran law allows for “the right of ownership and possession of firearms to citizens and foreign residents who are in full joy of their civil rights and comply with the requirements established by this Law and its regulations.” [3] However, 80% of all Honduran murders are committed with guns. There are around 850,000 guns floating around in Honduras, 400,000 of these “illicit” (in the manner that it was obtained via illicit means). [4] This might be a case of causation-correlation, but it does not seem so. 8% of all violent incidents and 68% of all murders were used firearms. [7] The neo-conservative mantra “people kill people, not guns” seems to work against their favor. Let us not forget our yardstick: negative utilitarianism. The harms done by guns being a right are huge: when 30,000 cases of murders could be reduced significantly, when gangs obtain arms without legal license whatsoever, then harm is done. The conclusion from all these harms that could be caused by gun rights is simple: that gun privilege, the only logical alternative to gun rights, shall create less harm. b.) Privilege and Guns Guns cannot be a right by the intrinsically nature of a "right", and must be considered a legal "privilege" rather than a right. This is because rights only deal with things that allow for humans to live a good life, whilst a privilege is an extension of this good right earned by duty. The United Nations defines rights as something "inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other statuses". [5] Guns, however, are not a right "inherent to all human beings" as of now. And it should never be. Although we have the rights to defend ourselves, this "liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else". [6] Guns can be used in both ways: either to harm others, or for self-protection. This is important: if guns can be used to harm others, then why is it a right? This weapon can be used to kill and murder: only the select few needs to get it. Insecticide is an example of a potentially lethal "privilege". In the United States, if insecticide were a right, as it can produce huge amounts of crops for food, then the damage cost by insecticide could be large. It could be used by people for differing purposes. However, the USG places regulations on this, henceforth reducing the usage of this fatal substance in a corrupted way.If we were to think about it, insecticide and guns are very much the same things. Both of them can kill. If placed in the wrong hands, many could die. If guns were a right, the usage of this right would be restricted in such a way that it would be utterly a privilege in safe societies. Think about the huge amounts of harm insecticide could do: forms of inseticide have been shown to be able to kill 11 million innocent people. Now, I am not saying guns are Zyklon B, but they could be considered the same thing in outcome: if Zyklon B is a privilege, then why is a gun not a privilege?c.) Gun Privilege "works"Gun privilege works in the sense that it reduces violent crime rate levels in many countries where it has been established. Since guns are owned by those who have the skills to operate one, and the correct intent, then crime rates can go down significantly, allowing the government to be able to provide for a safer society.In Australia, crime rates reduced dramatically after strict gun laws were emplaced in the mid-'90s. Gun-related murders were reduced by 47% in a matter of 10 years. From 1996 to 2010, the number of gun related deaths fell down by 27%. [8] Australia experienced the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, and since then, apart from a few outliers, huge massacres have been reduced to almost nil. Australia ranks 51st of 61 countries surveyed in 2013 in intentional homicide rate. Although gun violence could be considered highly prevalent in Australia, statistics are showing that the frequency of this is decreasing year. One is ten times more likely to get shot when living in the US than living in Australia. [9] In a survey of 170 countries, it was shown that Australia had the 41st highest gun ownership in the world: relatively high, considering strict gun control. [1]Let us think carefully here: our criterion of success relied on the reduction of harms done by those who could (i.e. gun owners). Side proposition is not advocating that we should take every single gun away from the public. Side proposition just wants to control the distribution of guns. The harms done by illicit guns are huge, but when these illicit guns become a "fundamental and constitutional" right, the harms are ever increased. Side proposition has given you the example of Honduras. Let us contrast Honduras with Australia: Honduran gangs, with very developed networks and military-grade guns, now have been roaming free in Honduras for a long time. This same gang-warfare logic drives migrants to the United States. In Australia, by contrast, we see a much safer society: albeit occasions of gang-warfare have been recorded, these are just outliers to the overall progress in harms done by guns.CONCLUSIONThe baseline of this case, that "guns cannot be a right, as that create a dangerous society and other philosophical implications", has hopefully been affirmed by our three contentions. The criterion of negative utilitarianism and what constitutes a right/privilege is reasonable enough for points of clash. As of now, the resolution remains affirmed!CITATIONS: [1] The World Almanac, Book of Facts 2015[2] US Constitution[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[4] http://www.gunpolicy.org...;[5] http://www.ohchr.org...;[6] http://www.hrcr.org...;[7] http://www.nij.gov...;[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[9] http://hereandnow.wbur.org...;