The US government should ban guns

OBV This is a normative resolution, thus the burden of proof falls on the both of us. Also, it is imperative that definitions account for the specific language in the resolution. Ban: Confiscate and outlaw, while placing penalties on owning said product, (in this case, guns.) Guns: Firearms. Framework We need weigh the impact of the general welfare of the people in today’s debate higher than any other impact. This is due to the fact that lives are priceless and the prevailing theories about debates such as this is that the number of people who are harmed by guns are a much bigger problem than the economy, which can always be fixed. Thus, if I can prove that the gun ban promotes the general welfare of the people, then the judges should feel comfortable to vote in my favor, and vice-versa for my opponent. Contention 1: Gun bans have been successful in reducing gun violence There is significant evidence pointing toward national gun bans to be the best way to reduce gun violence and crime. To see this, we turn toward Australia, the nation that has single-handedly decimated the gun violence in their own nation. This was accomplished by passing the National Firearms Agreement of 1996 as a reaction to the brutal massacre at a Tasmanian Seaside Resort (1). Harvard in 2007 reported that the result was that within 7 years of the installment of the sweeping policy that outlawed the majority of firearms and raised penalties for owning said weapons, the firearm suicide rate was cut in half from over 2/100,000 to 1.1/100,000 (1). This created a major dip in the total suicide rate not relating to firearms, as shown by the Guardian in June of 2016 when it states that the 1996 reforms resulted in the rising rate of suicides non-firearm suicides and homicides from 2.1% a year to 1.4% decline, which researchers attribute to the fact that people were not looking toward other methods of suicide or homicide (2). As previously mentioned, the rate of homicides also decreased significantly after the reforms were passed. The New York Times reports that despite the growing population of Australia, and the conservative nature of the government, these reforms did pass and resulted in the homicide rate decreasing by 50% in the decade after installment and has been on the decline since (3). Again, the rate of total homicide was shown to decrease as well, as criminals did not switch to another weapon to commit the crime they would have intended to have done (3). This can be attributed to the fact that guns are the most available type of weapon with a significant chance to inflict mortal damage. A knife is unwieldy and does not result in the same mortality rate as guns. The Annals of Emergency Medicine Journal in a 2003 report examined 4,122 patients and found that of those who were shot, 1/3 of them died, while only 7.7% died from knife wounds (4). It is harder to approach someone and aim for a vital organ without the victim knowing than it is to simply aim for a vital organ of said victim with a weapon. Given the fact that the majority of the guns used in homicides today are handguns, (as compiled from FBI data,) we can most definitely see that weapons which are small and fit in one’s hand are hard to see from the perspective of an unsuspecting victim (5). By decreasing the murder rate, we establish more peace in cities and suburbs that were fraught with gun violence beforehand, thus protecting the safety of the people and promoting the general welfare. We provide a safe environment for people to live in which ultimately means we protect their right to life without due process, as the taking of a life is in violation of this, which is again, promoting the general welfare of the people. Thus, one must cast a vote in the affirmation. Contention 2: Prevent gun accidents from occurring as well as lapses in judgement Gun accidents are prevalent in the status quo, much to the ire of many people. What is more disturbing is who fall victim in these gun accidents. Slate magazine quoted David Hemmingway in his book Private Guns, Public Health of the University of Michigan Press in 2006 which states that children are nine times more likely to die by gun accident in the US than any other nation in the developed world (6). These are preventable circumstances and should never occur as the children are our future educators, lawyers, and basically our entire job force. Despite the fact that there are training methods for children to prevent accidents like these from occurring, there is significant evidence to the contrary. Hardy MS of the Eckerd College in St. Petersburg FL in a report showed that out of 34 children aged 4-7, even after given the safety program, over 50% of them actually played with a firearm when given an opportunity to do so (7). With over 1 million children living in a household where a firearm is unlocked and not put away, or loaded according to the International Business Times in January of 2016, we can see that the current gun culture has ruined many people’s lives (8). However, this brings us to the question, of whether there is a safe way to store a firearm. The answer is a resounding no. The American Journal of Epidemiology found correlations between owning a firearm and increased chance of homicide, and suicide. Specifically speaking, nearly ¾ of suicide victims lived in a household with a gun, which is the same for 42% of homicide victims (9). What is more disturbing is the fact that a huge portion of the homicides were attributed to family disagreements, making up over 30% of homicides (9). People are simply not rational to be able to be under the stress of society, their job, their family, and their own hopes to own a weapon and assume that they will use it correctly. This is especially true if we look at American Medical News which reports in 2010 that there are about 15 million adults with depression in a given year, many of whom will not receive treatment (10). In fact, a 201 Live-science article reports that half of the depressed population does not get the treatment they need (11). This certainly has a correlation with the suicide rate and shows that Americans simply cannot own weapons in the way we want to in the status quo with millions of guns in circulation. In other words, we prevent the people who need psychological help from committing suicide while providing for the welfare of children and guaranteeing that the American people are not as likely to die from their own weapons. Thus, I am upholding the framework which states that we care about the people that will be effected by the resolution, ultimately leading to an obvious vote in the affirmation. Contention 3: Upholding life It is the sworn duty of the government to uphold the and protect the rights of the people so they do not become slaves to an oppressive and abusive government. By affirming, we do this because we set a precedent for upholding the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as outlined by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence (12). These principles are ingrained in American culture as the unalienable rights that all people are entitled to, and that all threats to those rights are, by nature, not in the best nature of the US. In fact, these are such American ideals that they are represented in the constitution by the Due Process clause in the constitution, meaning that everyone has these unalienable rights unless proven guilty of a crime worthy of having those rights taken away, and the 14th amendment which repeated the fact that everyone is equal under the law and has the right to life, liberty, and property. These ideas are based on the philosophy of John Locke, an enlightenment figure who inspired the creation of our government (13). This leads us to realize that by not holding up the job of the government, we are suppressing the people’s rights by allowing copious gun violence to continue and thus violating their autonomous right to life without due process of law. In this way, the US has an obligation to fix this problem posthaste and stop the violation of rights in the US, thus promoting the general welfare by giving people what they were promised by the political documents that established our country. Conclusion We need to affirm the resolution and save lives that would be lost without our ability to counter the threat. By doing so we prevent homicides, suicides, accidents, lapses of judgement, and to protect the rights of the American people from further encroachment. I have shown that under the affirmative world, the general welfare is upheld and thus, fulfilling my burden of proof, thank you. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...) 13. (http://tinyurl.com...)