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

Next round, my opponent can only rebut my 4th round, because that is what I am doing, and my opponent cannot rebut my 5th round, because it is unfair if you do so. This round will be very very very short. FrameworkOffensive! Many people say that Socrates is the wisest person alive, and always right, and many people agree. Also, Socrates is reasonable, because a law is a law, when St. Augustine's is not reasonable because a law is a law, when he does not agree. My opponent fails to rebut my framework on self-defence, so I extend that. My opponent's framework does no good, because none of his arguments link to the framework, and his arguments all fail. PlanWhy can't my plan work? It is perfectly reasonable, it happened in Iceland, and it would work in Australia. Pro says that I cannot make any changes, and I didn't. Pro says that children-related accidental deaths will still be high. This can be prevented by adults putting guns safely, that is logic! Putting it where children can reach is quite a stupid idea, this should not make a gun ban, only for the parents to put their guns in safe places. A. SuicidesMy opponent says that I miss the point, and says that around 80% do not want to suicide if they think about it. But we should respect their choices, so if they want to suicide, we should let them, even if they don't think about it. Also, what about the 20%? They really want to suicide, and we should let them, and guns are the best way to suicide, because you will die instantly, when others you might not die. My opponent also says that if you fail to die, 90% you will not want to attempt suicide. It is the same thing as last time. We should respect everyone's decision, always, like when they wanted to do suicide. Also, what about the 10%? They still want to suicide. We should let them because people have self-ownership, and own themselves, and they ought to have the right to make their own decisions. My opponent fails to defend this. B. Accidental DeathsPro concedes that we should not ban cars, as it's benefit's outweight their costs. Pro says that cars help the economy, and banning them will cause the economy cease to function. THIS IS THE SAME THING WITH GUNS, MAYBE MORE! !! Guns oughtweigh their costs, because of it's self-defence, we can defend ourselves, and it helps the economy too, as I explained in my third argument. This is literally a concession of my third argument, and for this, voters ought to vote Con. Pro says that suicides, accidental deaths, and homicides will outweight self-defence. As I told that accidental deaths can be blocked by my counterplan, and suicides should be allowed, etc. Self-defence does not get outweighed, and like Pro said cars have a benefit, so they should be allowed, the same thing is with guns, so it should be allowed, or otherwise, IT IS CRUEL AND UNFAIR. Pro says that I concede that accidental deaths happen. Sure, that's a fact, and we can't stop it. But, as I said, it is the same thing with cars, there are accidental deaths, so why not cars. Guns outweight accidental deaths by the economy, and self-defence. I've also made a counterplan to prevent them, by making special license for only good aimers to have guns. This way, it is the same as cars, and they should be allowed. My opponent fails to defend this. C. Anti-deterrencePro says that he used two sources, one was outdated, he concedes this, and the second one is in 2015, and the third one is in 2013. 2013 is 3 years ago, back when I can't go on DDO, and I have around 240 wins in I was in debate. org for 3 years. This is a long time. Also, I have more sources that say that guns are effective, so this is rebutted. My opponent says that I said you can change the content. It was a mistake, as I checked in a wesite, and NIE, you could change content, and I thought it was, but it is a mistake. But anyways, my rebuttal is still in contact that I provided more evidence that guns are good. 'My opponent says he uses logic, not everything needs to have a source. But this, you need a example to believe this. Also, who the hell will bring a gun in a discussion? No one. Therefore, this is too make-believed. My opponent fails to defend this. D: ViolencePro only says that I rebutted it with my plan, and my opponent says that my plan is ineffective, but does not tell why it is ineffective, so my opponent fails to defend this. This argument is failed for Pro. E: HandgunsPro fails to rebut my rebuttal that it should not be banned just because many robbers use it, and my opponent's defense is failed, and off-topic, because he says that the point is that handguns need to be more restricted, when clearly, the resolution is about guns being banned, not restricted. This argument is failed for Pro. F: Australia Pro says that there are many ways that the U. S. and Australia are similar, but Pro fails to do the only rebuttal, possibly the most important one, that U. S. has way more guns, 5 times as I said, than Australia. This is very different, therefore it cannot be weighed. This argument is failed. ConclusionI provided many ways why my arguments and framework, and plan suceeds, my opponent fails to rebut my arguments, and my opponent's arguments fail. Even if his framework stands, no arguments support it. Therefore, Vote Con! ! !