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

Framework My opponent states that they don’t need a framework because they propose no change in the status quo. This is fine but if they have no framework then they must concede to mine. Meaning that the debate must be viewed under individualism. My opponent does critique the framework here but a critiqued framework is better than no framework at all. My opponent critiques step 4 of the argument, stating that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that the argument cannot be true. The problem that I find with this claim is that Con states this but makes no attempt to actually prove this. My opponent isn’t negating the argument by saying that there is a lot of evidence against this. My opponent can only negate it by actually providing that evidence. Besides, Con never actually attempt to negate the claim that there is a non-zero possibility that moral realism is true. He states that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence contrary to this claim but that isn’t enough to counter the point since to prove that there is zero possibility of moral realism being true would require a large amount of evidence which Con isn’t able to provide. The framework based on normative ethics is dropped and conceded. The Murder Rate My opponent concedes all deaths and statistics. Under the individualistic framework this is an automatic win for Pro since the framework clearly states that lives matter and they should be valued. The comparisons are faulty and do not stand. If my opponent’s logic is true then we should allow children to carry knives because that won’t cause as many deaths as the flu does. Or maybe we should all kids to carry guns too because they might not kill as many people as the flu does. Just because guns don’t kill as many people as other things do, does not mean that they should remain legal. The framework is very clear that in stating that lives matter. Comparisons are not relevant since lives are still being lost and Con does not dispute my statistics or my framework. Just because I affirm a gun ban, that does not mean that I don’t encourage people to carry a handkerchief and increase flu prevention research. Yes, doing this would potentially save more lives however just because a gun ban will save less lives, doesn’t mean that we can’t do that too. The Plan We seem to have a resolutional misunderstanding. The term that I am going to focus on here is the term: ‘ought’. The term ought isn’t about feasibility. It is about the morality behind the issue [1]. Yes, doing it across 6 terms will be difficult which is why this debate is not centered on how feasible the issue is, it is about how moral it is. Of course it’s unlikely that the US will have a gun ban in the next few election terms. It is also unlikely that it will occur over 6 electoral periods of 5 years. However the resolution is specific in addressing that the issue is an issue of morality as opposed to likelihood. The reason that I stated that we should do it over a long period of time is so that it would result in less chaos. I understand that people will be upset (as my opponent has stated) which is exactly the reason why I have decided to do this over a long period of time. The money is irrelevant. The framework is based on individual lives. Not about the economy or about benefit for the government. If my opponent wanted this debate to be based on the economy he should have made a suitable framework based on this. Since he did not opt in to form this kind of framework the argument regarding the economy should have little, if any, impact. My opponent asks how 30 years can possibly be the moral thing to do. My answer is simple. By making the process occur over a 30 year period I am minimizing violence and riots and the ones that will occur will not all happen at once (since the people with there guns will not be complaining). They will happen in small quantities over the 30 year period. This means that ultimately the moral aim is achieved (banning guns) and it is done in a way that reduces violence as a form of protest. My opponent brings up the common objection regarding criminals failing to hand in their guns. My response here is that the process will be long. As I state in my framework, it will not be easy and it will take a long time. However, when guns are illegal that means that anybody found with a gun will have it confiscated and removed. Over a long period of time (longer than the plan itself), guns will slowly decrease. I will reiterate the argument that I made in the previous round. Drugs are illegal. People still use drugs. Does that mean that drugs should be legal? People kill people, murder is illegal. Does that mean that murder should be legal? Just like drugs and murder, guns will still be used however just like if murder or drugs were legal, deaths and usage of drugs would be significantly higher if they were legal than if they remained illegal as they are now Additionally, my opponent brings up wild animals (again). As I have already stated. The resolution refers to privately owned guns. This means that police and hunters will still have their guns and wild animals will not be any more of a problem than they currently are with guns legalized. The resolution is evidently affirmed. All of my opponent’s arguments are refuted, they fail to provide an impact analysis of any of their contentions. Due to the shared burden of proof, voter’s ought to be voting off of whose arguments create the most impact under the framework. My opponent chooses to make arguments irrelevant to the debate framework and then he goes on to say that he does not need a framework. This seems contradictory to me and it should be viewed as such. I strongly urge voters to vote Pro. Thank you for debating this topic with my autocorrect. May the best debater win. Sources [1] http://www.lectlaw.com... [2] https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu...