Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Any decision undermining gov legitimacy deteriorates society. I negate the resolu I would like to add the following definitions to today debate: Hand gun: A gun designed for use by one hand, especially a pistol or revolver. (Oxford dictionary) Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone"s actions (Oxford business dictionary) Private ownership: The ownership of tangible and intangible goods by an individual who has exclusive rights over it. The transfer of a private property can take place only by the owner"s consent or through a sale or through its presentation as a gift. (Black's Law Dictionary) My core value for today"s debate is government legitimacy: There are several ways to determine what a government must do to be legitimate. Government legitimacy is defined descriptively by Max Weber as a system of authority that the people recognize and obey. In his own words "the basis of every system of authority and of every willingness to obey, is a belief, a belief by virtue of which person exercising authority are lent prestige." Basically it requires that the people recognize the authority. The other common theory is that legitimacy is linked to moral justification. A combination of these definitions makes the most sense for this debate because both are necessary for a government to work. A government must have obedience and should absolutely be for the good of the people. In order to support both forms of government legitimacy America must adhere to democracy. Democracy as I will use in this debate refers to a specifically American form and idea of democracy since this is about policy in the United States. Democracy as I use it, includes constitutionalism, popular sovereignty, Democratic process, and the support of as many democratic principles as possible. For one, the reason there is unity between the people and the government is the democratic process. It ensures that the people know how their government functions which allows them to obey and recognize the government as legitimate. Also, democracy was designed in America as a process that ensures the government makes decisions with moral justification which also makes the government legitimate. For example in the confines of this debate, adhering to constitutionalism while understanding its intent helps the government make a decision with moral justification. If America adheres strictly to its original founding, purpose, and process it will maintain legitimacy far into the future. The importance being in this debate that if American policy is allowed to move against democratic process in some cases, then its power becomes unchecked and it may become ill intended. Contention 1: A hand guns ban is undemocratic, thereby perpetuating a deterioration of America"s legitimacy in the view of the people and moving against our process of making moral decisions. Sub-point A: A hand gun banishment counteracts the value in the constitution and 2nd amendment. The second amendment reads "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." Perhaps a straightforward and clear intentioned line to the founding fathers is now unclear in the 21st century. It is weak to simply say that because it is in the constitution it is inherently our obligation. It can only hold relevance today if we can understand the intent of the line and impacts today. The intent is in the words itself "being necessary to the security of a Free State"" It makes sense why this was such a critical issue for the founding fathers who experienced militaries being used for oppression. Yet this is a timeless American ideal. Firearms are a check on leadership to make sure the power actually does stay in the hands of the people. It is in that sense a tool of maintaining democracy. On top of that, this amendment empowers the individual to protect their own right to life, liberty, health, and property. Finally, in 2008 during the Heller .v. Columbia case the Supreme Court made some major decisions about the 2nd amendment. Most significantly that the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to arms and that handguns are recognized as legitimate arms. Because the analysis of the amendment still has relevance it must be upheld or else democracy is undermined. Banning handguns would undoubtedly be infringing on the people"s right to bear arms. Sub-point B: Allowing handguns better allows people to protect their own lives, thereby protecting rights. Adding to one of the impacts the second amendment still has today, handguns allow the people the ability to protect themselves. Hand guns are a practical weapon for home defense because they can be concealed and are easily accessible and easy to use. It is politically accepted that a government ought to protect every citizen"s life, liberty, health, and property first and foremost as part of John Locke"s social contract. In regards to pragmatic option of banning handguns in which the affirmative side argues that more lives are saved based purely off the numbers, shouldn"t an individual have the option to protect themselves? If hand guns were banned every time someone gets shot in their home we couldn"t help but wonder if that law abiding citizen could have saved themselves. Also, hand guns do have attributes to self-protection that other guns don"t provide. Their concealability makes them practical for self-protection because one can practically carry one out of the house. In this case a young woman out after dark may have a strong self-defense method with her. Allowing hand guns gives everyone an equal chance to protect themselves and makes sure no group is favored over another. Contention 2: The popular vote is to keep handguns legal. Democracy is defined by government by the people. As a democratic country we ought to consider what the people actually want. A poll in 2011 by Gallop found that 73% of Americans are against a hand gun ban. As a democracy we ought to consider that the people believe that the ban would not be favorable whether they think it is unconstitutional, or think it help their safety. Now to address my opponents case: 1st of all my opponent asks not to judge off my last speech. I will try not to bring up any new points but is really in my opponents last speech that new points MUST not be because I will have no opportunity to address it. Still I understand his intent and will attempt to bring up all points in this speech if he does the same. (: Now, lets jump right into my opponents case starting with his Core value and value criterion of Morality and minimizing oppression. Obviously morality is a good thing to uphold. I would just like to point out that my core value is a moral CV and I have simply taken the broad idea of morality and shown how we can apply it to this debate. For this reason you won't be able to value morality above government legitimacy because they are one in the same. That being said, my opponent upholds a consequentialist view of morality meaning the most good for the most amount of people or that we are looking to maximizing moral ends. I would just like to point out that if you value this then you would be allowing my opponent to ignore other people or do immoral things to get to the moral end. In this debate my opponent would do immoral things to reach an end. Because my opponent believes affirming allows for less death he would move against democratic intent, the people's will, and leave some defenseless. Look to my point I layer out that a hand guns is much more practical than a rifle for women's self defense. (more on that later) Continuing with this idea is the Value criterion of minimizing oppression. This simply isn't going to work with my opponents views of morality. My opponents main argument here is that we are allowing guns for men to terrorize women with. However, this idea is actually being thought about backwards. In reality without handguns we are taking away a favored weapon of self defense. Handguns are practical because they are light and practical to carry. If a women is truly worried about her self defense she would prefer to carry around a handgun then a rifle or any other gun. Even if you don't buy me there, affirming would actually be oppressive because the people don't want a hand guns ban and it's a very important ideal of America. If you affirm you are allowing the government to go beyond its jurisdiction. If the government can break democratic process in this circumstance it could in any. Now for the contentions which I am going to subgroup due to low number of characters remaining. C1: Cross apply all I said about value criterion. If you affirm you are actually stealing the right to life because you are taking it out of their own hands and into the hand of a government that can not provide solvency. People deserve a right to protect themselves then be protected. c2: My opponent brings up that hand guns are unique to this circumstance which if it is even true it would still be unjust to stop them because it is out of the democracies jurisdiction. Don't let my opponent argue that that could change because a debate that doesn't take place in reality is futile. On top of that, when considering life and homicide my opponent tries to protect quantity of lives. I am trying to protect quality of life by giving one their own life and stopping the government from being so all powerful. Finally, some of my opponents stats are countered. From 1993-2013 firearm homicides have dropped by half and peoples ownership has increased by 50%. A decrease in guns doesn't = less deaths necessarily. Also, when other liberal gun politics have been in acted like assault rifle ban, there has been no correlation. Finally, my opponents case about the black-market doesn't make sense. All homicides are committed by criminals, and who accesses the black market? criminals do