in the united states, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

once again ill go AC NC my opponent refutes my value by saying that morality is subjective, but there are 2 problems with this. first, he doesnt even have a value in his constructive, so clearly we need to look to my value. second, he ignores my criterion of contractarianism. even if our perceptions are subjective, we reach an objective perception of morality through contractarianism because we willingly give up the rights that we know could be used against us. my oponent also brings up a card saying that 52% of americans oppose stricter gun controls, but there are two problems with this. first, it is an is/ought logical fallacy. just because people think something, doesnt mean we ought to do something. Im sure a poll of nazis in germany would have said that 99% of them wanted to kill the jews, but that doesnt mean that we ought to kill them. there is a clear difference. second, the card simply says that people want stricter gun controls, but it doesnt even have an option for people to choose that they wanted a ban, so the card isnt even comparitive in relation to the aff. moving on to contention 1, my opponent poses the question of is it really good to prevent suicide. but, looking to my crirterion of contractarianism, the answer is clearly yes. we realize that the right for others may infringe on our rights. the card that i read shows that suicides are almost always impulsive acts, so the right for a parent to own a handgun will infringe on the right of a child's life because during the impulse, he uses the handgun to killself. so clearly, we recognize a place where mutual constrains will attain the more important right of life. in response to the brits. first, my opponent talks about how they now stab eachother. however, my first contention isnt talking about homicide, it is talking about suicide. second, he doesnt even read a card so you cant weigh that card in this round. in response to his idea of educatng the proper use of guns, my opponent provides no solvency that this will actually happen. as you can see with the card that I put forth in my contention 1 subpoint B, accidents happen to anyone, and most accidental deaths happen during routine activities. being careful still isnt enough to stop these accidents from happening because guns are erratic and can discharge accidentally even with careful handling. in response to the black market argument, my oponent doesn't even prove that a black market would arise. who is to say that normal law abiding citizens are going to break the law and go the black market. I would argue that they wont. moving on to my oponents case he defends his second contention by saying that it was in fact a gun ban that failed, however, he provides no evidence that there was in fact a gun ban. in fact, the evidence he cites in the NC states that "Syed Rizwan Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik had legally obtained two handguns and that two rifles were also legally purchased in California" so we can see that the guns were still legally purchased, and therefore readily available to most of the population, a problem that would not exist in the affirmative world. In fact, the card he presents states that the only thing illegal were the high capacity magazines, so it is clear to see that restrictions are not enough to prevent handgun crimes. in response to his "fourth" contention, he says that he has a reason for why we need the right to handguns in the second ammendment, but the only reason he said was "The Second Amendment gives us the power to oppose tyranny. It does so because no dictatorship would want to come to a country that can resist", but as i said, handguns are not sufficient to protect against a tyranical government. if the government became oppresive nowadays, and you and a couple of your buddies showed up on capitol hill with a couple of handguns and ski masks, the govenment would annihalate you because of the technology they have. the second ammendment is outdated. sure, maybe back in 1781 when the only firearm was a musket, you could use your guns to start a rebellion. but nowadays, with the technology our military has, its simply not feasible. also, my opponent drops my is/ought fallacy attack, so his fourth contention is going to fall. he does not sufficiently prove why we even ought to have the right to own handguns. all he says is we need arms to protect from tyranny, but as i have pointed out in the 1AR and 2AR, arms does not necessarily mean handguns, and handguns are clearly not useful for protecting yourself from the government. Moving on the the key voting issues, first, my opponent does not prove why restrictions are necessarily required over bans. he outlines the harm of homicides in contention 1, but he doesnt even provide any link as to why restrictions should be valued over bans. I solve for this problem even better than he does because looking to THE EVIDENCE THAT HE PRESENTS, people legaly obtained handguns in california and used them to kill other people. so you will be signing the ballot affirmative there Second, my opponent does not sufficiently prove why handguns are a right that is essential to retain. his fourth contention is a complete is/ought logical fallacy, so he doesnt prove that we have the right to bear arms. and even if we did, that doesn't mean we have the right to bear handguns. so your clearly going to see that under contractarianism, we ought to give up this right that we technically possess in the state of nature because of the 3 guarenteed benefits: preventing accidental deaths (my contention 1b) preventing suicides (my contention 1A) and preventing homicides (his contention 1) And for these reasons, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot (ps great debate. do you do LD?)