Fire v.s. bsh: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Bonjour!Merci, Bsh. Now I will be defending my case, and rebutting what Pro says in round 3.Cadre/ FrameworkMy opponent says that my second and third argument does no have any link to my framework of self-defense. Not all of your arguments need to be linked to your framework, like if people who don't have any framework, then that means that no one will evaluate your arguments. This is false, we just need to make the argument have a claim, a warrant, and an impact to the resolution. I already explained that all we need is an impact to the resolution, so this is false. A framework is an "introduction", and introducing your arguments, and saying about what most of your arguments will be centered around, and mine was self-defense, that was my only offensive argument. My other ones were defensive arguments, so they don't need to be linked to the framework. My defensive arguments were like, "If we ban guns, then this will happen, that will happen... We shouldn't ban guns." There is no reason my defensive arguments need to be linked to the framework, it only needs to make an impact to the resolution.My reason was that it was a law, and said that Socrates said, "Even a bad law is a law" when he was sentenced to death, and he was the smartest Greek in the world, so we need to follow the law, in this case is self-defence.Defence 1: Self-defenceA: My opponent says that 77% of the time we miss our targets. But then what about the 23%? Then they have to die, or give their money. 23% is a lot, more than 40,000 times out of 2 million. Then do these 400,000 times we need to be hit by robbers, or die? Also, even if we miss the target, it at least will threaten the robber, and they will escape. My opponent says, "even when fired by trained gun-handlers." The title of the source is, "Research: Untrained gun users prove ineffective at self defense", so this is a ineffective rebuttal because of my counterplan.My opponent says that the bad guy will kill us first for 67% of the time. but as I said, what about the 33%? For not making it 100%, we need guns to have self-defence. Pro says that if he was in a tense situation, he would panick, and may shoot innocent people. Then how could 400,000 cases do this? If we ban guns, then 400,000 people will not be saved. And, in my counterplan, we train them with more gun training, and teach them how to use a gun quickly, and teach them to shoot, and trying to not panick. The police would contribute too.My opponent says, " In fact, if the goal of effective self-defense is to make victims safer, then you should vote Pro, because, as I've shown, guns make people less safe."My opponent is not making 400,000 people not safe, maybe even more, so my opponent's rebuttal is not met. B: My opponent says that it is highly good to doubt 2 million cases of self-defence uses per year. However, my source claims that it is true, and in my source, there are many other further reading sources, and most of them say the same thing, therefore my opponent's rebuttal is not met. My opponent says, "It was a survey..." Then how can we even know this without a survey? We can't go into every single case, and a survey is the best way to do it. C: My opponent is basically making a counterplan that we can use other guns. This basically comes to my side. The full resolution was normal guns too, and guns, basically, and these are guns. Defense 2: Time A: My opponent says that we can't stop all murders, and it is the same thing. Then there is NO REASON for a gun ban, if we still use guns. The only bad thing is the economy, because factories cannot sell guns, though the black market can.My opponent says that a purpose of a handgun ban is not to prevent all handgun bans, only to reduce them. There is no point to reduce them, because they can't reduce them, because Pro says that they will hide them, just not make more. There are still around 300 million of guns, and I see no reason to stop right now. Also, my opponent read the resolution a little skewered. The Resolution is: "In the United States, private ownership of handguns/ normal guns ought to be banned", not reduce. The defintion of ban is: officially or legally prohibit (something) [1]. It does not say reduce, so my oppnent finds the resolution wrong, and there is no point for my opponent to argue with the resolution.B: It seems like my opponent does not understand my argument. My argument was that there is no reason for the government to waste time on gun banning, as it is useless. It does nothing to do with my license counterplan, that is for my rebuttals, and what we should do. The government would approve, because they won't ban all guns, because they can't. It violates the 2nd, and 5th amedment in the Constitution [2].C: I said it will spend money, and it won't work. We don't know how much money we need to spend on banning it, because it wasn't banned yet, and much, around 5 more times for of how much Australia spent, probably as the U.S. has 5 times more, even with their gun ban, so it would be tons, and it won't work. The U.S. does not need to care about a non-working thing, they should ban smoking instead.Defense 3: EconomyA: Banning ownership of hanguns basically means that we ban handguns. Then, all their jobs will fail. Pro says that there can be additional jobs to increase demand in a handgun ban, for common sense, it won't be 220,000 jobs, therefore my opponent's rebuttal is not met.B: Pro gives reasons, and says that the black market will reduce by a ban, and criminals won't buy them. I do know that criminals will buy less, but they will still to earn more money buy threatening and stealing, but reducing is nonsense. The whole point of a black market is to sell the illegal things, it this case: guns. Therefore, my opponent's rebuttal does not impact, and voters ought to vote Con.ConclusionI showed my reason, and defended my arguments that there should not be a gun ban. Please Vote Con! Thank you! Onto Bsh!Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] https://www.quora.com...VOTE CON!!!