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

Just a fore note, I fully capitalized some phrases in my evidence. Please do not be bothered by this, this only shows which part of the evidence is extremely important. I value morality as per the evaluative term "ought" in the resolution, which is defined as "used to express duty or moral obligation". By Merriam-Webster. The standard is minimizing oppression. 1.Oppression is bad for equality a.Arbitrariness " identity is morally arbitrary, so allowing discrimination undermines the foundation of a moral theory. b.Inclusion is an epistemological prerequisite " oppression is the biggest impact since we can"t form moral theories until all those affected are included by it. c.Any theory that condones an unequal societal order should be rejected since it would not be accepted by those at the bottom " this makes it useless as a political philosophy, which must be justifiable to the citizens who the government rules over. 2.Structural violence is based in moral exclusion which is flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived difference. Winter and Leighton 01 To recognize structural violence questions the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. We must be vigilant in listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered. Structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its effects. The same structure which feed violence can also be used to EMPOWER CITIZENS to reduce it. 3.Ethical theories that can"t account for the reality we live in fail as normative guides to action. Farrelly 07 Normative theorizing must be integrated with empirical realities of society. Non-ideal considerations must be taken seriously when deriving the principles of justice. If to implement the theory would not result in increase in justness, then it fails. Theorists assume a philosopher can easily determine the best conditions. Philosophers should adopt a critically reflective attitude towards concerning what is realistically possible. Egalitarian theories cannot address tradeoffs that inevitable arise. As the affirmative, I will defend buyback programs, meaning the government will buy back all handguns from citizens. Contention 1: Femicide A] Handguns are used to threaten, terrorize, and kill feminized bodies in the household. Overton 15 A gun in the home puts women at risk. A cross-national study found high correlation between gun accessibility and femicide homicide. Women said the gun used to threaten them, prevented them from reacting, and they felt unable to end the relationship for fear. Two thirds of households, the partner used to gun against the women. B] The mere presence of a gun elicits aggressive violent behavior. Banning handguns solves the "weapons effect" " empirics prove. Umberger 13 Guns themselves have been cues of aggression. Frustration can lead to aggressive behavior in the presence of guns. The mere presence can influence aggressive behavior. The removal of guns would reduce aggressive behavior. Within a year of the ban there was a significant drop in homicide and robbery. C] Banning handguns is uniquely key to prevent femicides " best data shows handguns are the murders" weapon of choice. VPC 11 Handguns were the most common weapon used to murder females. The number of females killed was five times higher than the total number murdered. Using all weapons combined, handguns were the weapon of choice. 69% killed with handguns. D] Handguns are used in self-defense in less than 1% of cases " the risk that it can cause harm is sufficient to affirm. Donohue 15 The victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of incidents. The invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim's gun than have the victim use self-defense. The fails to deliver 95% but has the potential-particularly handguns- to harm someone. E] Try or die for the aff " only a risk we can solve, this means you default gun control solves crime. NY Times 15 It is MORAL OUTRAGE that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. Determined killers obtain weapons illegally in England and Norway, yes, but at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Certain weapons must be outlawed for ownership. Contention 2: Homicide A] Handguns are the FIREARM OF CHOICE for violent crime " BEST EVIDENCE shows reducing handgun possession REDUCES homicide rates and doesn't cause a switch to other weapons. Dixon 11 The US far outstrips countries in handgun ownership and homicide rates. TWENTY TIMES GREATER, handguns are THE FIREARM OF CHOICE OF CRIMINALS, being use in 72 percent of homicides. SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING HANDGUNS WILL REDUCE HOMICIDE. Because of their cheapness, concealability, ease of use, and lethality, handguns are ideally suited to crimes and CRIMINALS ARE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO COMMIT AS MANY VIOLENT CRIMES BY SWITCHING TO ALTERNATIVE WEAPONS. Sophisticated statistical analyses of COMPREHENSIVE COMPARATIVE DATA PROVIDE STRONG SUPPORT. Three separate studies found that the prevalence of firearms strongly correlated with the homicide rate with a PROBABILITY OF 0.01 THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN BY CHANCE. In its REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE, the Academy of Science concludes that there is a substantial association between gun ownership and homicide. B] Banning handguns undermines illegal markets and reduces gun availability " four warrants. Limiting legal gun accessibility ultimately undermines illegal markets and reduces crime, we solve the root cause as we take away the source of guns. LaFollette 2K The availability of guns increases crime. Where do criminals get their guns? [1] They steal them or buy them from those who purchased them legally. Even guns obtained from other criminals are traceable to people who purchased them legally. Empirical evidence supports this. [2] At least half a million guns are stolen each year and these swell the numbers of guns available illegally. [3] The legal market also affects PRICE. As we restrict guns in the primary market, the supply of guns in secondary markets decreases and their cost increases. INCREASE IN COST DIMINISH ABILITY TO OBTAIN GUNS, thereby DECREASE the number of homicides. [4] Conversely, legally available guns increases the number of guns. This makes it easier for criminals to obtain guns. C] Buyback programs are extremely effective " empirics prove. Oremus 15 Homicides by firearm PLUNGED 59 PERCENT WITH NO INCREASE in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides was 65 PERCENT. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. ROBBERIES DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY, HOME INVASIONS DID NOT INCREASE. Contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia [have] been DISCREDITED. Other reports have cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia"s laws didn't work. Peer-reviewed papers note that the RATE OF DECREASE in gun-related deaths more than DOUBLED following the gun buyback. D] Buyback programs work and doesn't cause a switch to different weapons. Ramzy et al 15 The places where the most guns were removed from public circulation experienced the LARGEST DROPS in gun deaths. Firearm suicides fell. Firearm homicides also fell. Overall homicide and suicide rates fell, meaning Australians did not respond killing one another or themselves using other weapons. At least 200 lives are saved annually because of Australia"s gun buyback program.