Ladies and Gentlemen,

We already heard it, we have seen it, and we know for a fact that crime is at its highest
peak and sadly, most of these crimes are affiliated with firearms. We advocate for a peaceful
community where guns are out of the picture. That is why the house resolves that, “We should
implement/go for total gun ban.” Now let me give you the definition of terms. The meaning of
firearm/ gun can be contemplated upon the [REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591] Art. 3 (L) which
states: (l) Firearm refers to any lethal portable weapon designed to expel a bullet at a high
velocity. While total gun ban refers to a proposition that no person shall be allowed to bear,
possess, or use a privately-owned firearm, and because this proposition is a call to enactment,
this is therefore a policy debate, and we have the burden to provide the policy.

So to make things clear and to state our affirmative plan, I would like to explain our
policy on the questions what, how, who, where and when? First off, what is our policy with
regards to total gun ban? Our policy is simple, to “confiscate and compensate privately-owned
guns” and how would we do it?

1.Our policy would encourage the civilians to hand down their arms to the government.
2.Door-to-door operations shall be done as the last resort and it will be executed in a peaceful
and diplomatic manner. 3.So as not be unjust to those licensed gun owners, we would
compensate them . Before imposing the “confiscate and compensate policy” we would have to
increment the 4.police operations responsible for seizing illegal ownership of guns and illegal
gun trade until these issues are put to an end, and also in order to prevent criminals from
circumventing the policy. As for those 5.legal gun shops, the government shall hire them to be its
suppliers. 6. We would double the increase of police power and military force if need arises to
increase public safety. (Who) The citizens shall be the ones subjected to total gun ban, and
police and military shall be exempted thereof, provided that they would only use the guns given
to them for the exercise of their profession. (Where)We, as the affirmative side has a right to
frame the parameters of the debate, and we choose the Philippines as such. (When) It is crystal
clear that total gun ban must be acted immediately as a deterrent of crime. We would like to
remind you that even before this policy is enacted, we would assure the public that they would be
safe.

Now that I have laid out our policy and affirmative plan, let us now flesh out the
necessity of total gun ban. First off, the main necessity and existence of a gun ban is to decrease
criminal activity which can be branched out to Homicide, Suicide, unintentional deaths and
injuries, crimes affiliated with guns, illegal hunting, illegal gun trade and ownership. Let’s
talk statistics first. While the United States has the highest per-person percentage of gun
ownership in the world, the Philippines has a much lower gun-ownership ratio. Despite those
numbers, the Philippines have a much higher gun-related homicide rate than the US. There were
8.9 homicides per 100,000 people in the Philippines, while in the US there were 3.3 homicides
per 100,000 people. If that is the case then what will happen if we have even more guns? We
cannot reason that total gun ban isn’t necessary to obtain peace because Firearms are rated on the
top 10 leading catalysts of crime close to drug use and other inducers to commit crime. The
assertion that Guns have no part in the perpetration of violence is absurd.
 Let’s talk about real-life examples. A shooting rampage that left a pregnant woman, her
3-year-old daughter, and seven others dead near Manila and 1,067 alleged drug pushers had died
at the hands of vigilantes through the use of firearm However the sad part is, Homicide is not the
only gun-related violence, but also suicide and even unintentional deaths and injuries, with an
annual firearm suicide which totals to 30 and 36 annual unintentional shooting deaths total in
the Philippines. At least two children were killed during New Year revelry, including a five-year-
old boy who was shot with a home-made shotgun, and a seven-year-old girl who was hit by a
stray bullet. As we can see here, even if it’s already unintentional, because of the presence of
guns, the violence is still committed.

Second necessity is that gun ban must be implemented because the citizens shall not be
entrusted with guns. So as to prove my point, statistics again shows that The Philippine
National Police had arrested 4,661 people for violating the country’s 150-day election gun ban,
and sadly, all these people are registered and legal gun owners which are the very ones that the
government expect to be handling the guns properly and obeying the law, but it seems to me that
the citizens quickly abuses their right to ownership of such guns. They fail to recognize that the
right of individuals to bear arms is not absolute, but is subject to regulation as stated by the court
case G.R. No. 157036.

However, lack of responsibility from these citizens are not the only point on why we
shouldn’t entrust people with guns, because the initial reason with it is that it is not now
necessary for them to have privately-owned firearms meaning to say back at the old times,
the right to bear arms is highly encouraged by the state to the fact that there is lack in military
power and the state may easily call upon the people to arms. However times have changed and
it’s no longer happening in a lot of countries because the military is well enough to defend the
country and it is the constitutional duties of the state to protect such citizens, therefore, it is the
exact reason why arming everyone wouldn’t help and is not needed at all!

Now the negative side may reason that we deprive them of right to bear arms and that
guns must not be banned for self defense. However, when we look on the essence of such right,
bearing arms, though permitted by law, is not a constitutional right in the Philippines and self
defense isn’t even an issue when we impose total gun ban because non-existence of privately-
owned guns doesn’t deter self defense. Firstly, as said before, police power is increased in order
to protect public safety. Second, the Government shall increase the priority of seizing illegal gun
ownership and trade before imposing gun ban so as to neglect the criminals from access to it and
thereby decreasing threat to public safety. Third, having a firearm in your home may FEEL as if
you are protecting yourself, but it is an illusion. For every gun that is used for self-defense, there
are 11 guns in homes used for completed or attempted suicides, 7 used in criminal assaults and
homicides, and 4 used in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries In other words, a gun in the
home is 22 times more likely to be used to harm someone in the household than to protect them.
Alternative self defense weapons/objects can be used to protect you if need arises such as batons,
pepper spray, stun guns(optional). By these points we clearly address to you that Guns are no
longer needed by the people because self-defense can be attained without it! That is why let us
enact a total gun ban right now! Let peaceful resolve prosper, and stop ending arguments with a
trigger”.