DDO Champions League Debate: Gun Ban

Plan 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. Furthermore, it also reduces the negative response that would occur if a gun ban was immediately introduced at this point in time. We can also psychologically observe that radical change is objectively worse than gradual change which our plan covers and bypasses [1]. Framework Moral realism ought to be conceded by our opponent’s as the metaethical framework for this debate as both of our cases are contingent on it’s existence. Our normative ethical framework for this debate will be based on the ideology of individualism which holds the life of the individual within society to be morally important [14]. This means that if we successfully manage to prove that guns result in causing more deaths than it saves then our burden is fulfilled. Our opponent’s burden will be to prove that guns save more lives than they kill meaning that under the framework of individualism, lives will be saved and preserved as opposed to being lost. This framework ought to accepted by voters for the reason that the primary reason as to why guns are currently legal in the US is because they’re function is to save lives and to ultimately protect people [15]. If we manage to prove that the function of guns isn’t working and is actually resulting in more people dying (as opposed to less people dying) then this is a valid and reasonable point which allows us to affirm on the basis that the primary reason that guns are legal is failing. Our framework is affirmed. And now in our contentions we wish to prove that guns, overall are negative under the individualistic framework by applying the murder rate to the individualistic equation and by debunking the myth of self defense. 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). Self Defense One of the most common arguments made by gun advocates is the idea that guns are necessary for the act of self defense. According to the Violence Policy Center [16], the FBI reports that in the year of 2013 there were only 211 justifiable homicides involving private citizens using a firearm. To put this statistic into perspective, there were 7,838 criminal gun homicides in the nation in the year of 2013. There is a 37:1 criminal homicide to self defense ratio. A study performed by the National Crime Victimization Survey [17] revealed that you have a %10.9 chance of sustaining injury while using a gun in self defense, whereas if no action was taken at all you have an %11 chance of sustaining bodily harm. It seems to me that this data proves our notion that reducing the amount of guns, and eventually banning the ownership of firearms, will be beneficial to society as a whole, given the fact that criminal homicides completely outnumber the citizen’s use of self defense. Suicides Harvard school of Public Health [18] has determined a strong and fatal link between guns and suicide. Roughly 30,000 yearly suicides occur as a result of guns. Whilst it is arguable that people that are suicidal will attempt to commit suicide with, or without a gun, many suicide attempts fail whereas very few people are able to survive gun blasts [18]. This significantly increases the chances of suicidal success which is not a good thing because not only is it a violation of the individualistic framework but it is also the cause of problems that stretch beyond the debate framework. The majority of people that attempt to commit suicide and fail have said that they regret their decision to commit suicide and are grateful and thankful that they survived [19]. Given that guns increase the chances of suicide as well as the probability of people committing it we can see that not only is this a violation of the framework but it is also unnecessarily taking away people’s lives when in reality we can observe that most people that survive attempt suicide are happy that they lived. Conclusion We have shown that individualism is the best perspective to view this debate upon. We have also shown the high death statistics caused by guns (which is a clear violation of individualism). Whilst I do have some more points (as the reasons to ban guns are endless), We believe that we have said enough to support our side in the debate with the arguments that we have presented. Ergo, you ought to vote in our 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... [13] http://dspace.mit.edu... [14] https://en.wikipedia.org... [15] https://www.theguardian.com... [16] http://www.vpc.org... [17] https://www.thetrace.org... [18] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [19] http://www.businessinsider.com...