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

A battle between two ferrets which both look tired... I thank my opponent for making his arguments. I wil refute them right now. Remeber, ferrets and axolotl are the best animal debaters (airmax, bsh, whiteflame, etc.)FrameworkMy opponent's framework is that we select rules by in terms of goodness. This is false, as Socrates says. He says, "Even a bad law is a law [1].", when he was sentenced to death. Therefore, it is not always from goodness.My opponent does not refute my framework about self-defence. Therefore, my framework stands, when my opponent's does not. My opponent's framework in hard to understand, and does nothing to do with the topic.CounterplanI thought I won't need one, but I guess I do.I also have a counterplan for this. Iceland has guns, and you need a special license [3]. I ask that we need a license to get guns too. You need a car license to practise with your car to not make accidents. Why not guns? With a license, it will be certainly more safer, because only the ones who are good at this can have it, for safety. You can use it to defend yourself.This simple counterplan get rebut the robbers favortie weapon, as they need special licnese's too, and need to follow the conduct to still have them, it is kinda like voting priv. in DDO.Rebuttal PART 1Rebuttal A: Suicides My opponent says that guns are the best way to do suicide, and if we do ban guns, then suicide rates will fall down. First of all, what even is the definiton of suicide?Suicide: the act of killing yourself because you do not want to continue living [2]. So, you are killing yourself, not others. Why aren't others letting them do so? If they don't want to live, they can do their own choice. People have self-ownership [4]; they own themselves, so they can do anything they want. If they want to suicide, let them do so. It is their choice, and none of our buisness. Why should you save someone when they want to be dead?Rebuttal B: Accidental DeathsPro says that there are many accidents with guns. So what? Just because there are many accidents, does it mean that we should ban it? Gun gives lot's of self-defence too, as I explained it the first argument. I also have a counterplan for this. Iceland has guns, and you need a special license [3]. I ask that we need a license to get guns too. You need a car license to practise with your car to not make accidents. Why not guns? With a license, it will be certainly more safer, because only the ones who are good at this can have it, for safety. You can use it to defend yourself.We don't care about the numbers of accidental deaths, only if we have accidental death in something, or if there are not accidental deaths. Looking at debate.org does not give you an accidental death. However, a car can hit you, and it is an accidental death. You can slip of a chair and die a accidental death. Almost anything can have accidental deaths, because that is the important part. Because almost everything has accidental deaths, and this is only one of them, we shouldn't ban guns.Rebuttal C: Anti-deterrencePro says that guns are a valuable loot for them. Pro says that guns give one a false sense of security. However, Pro's source is from 5-10 years ago, and many things changed in this time. Also, I have showed many sources about guns having self-defence, when Pro only shows one. And also, anyone can write and post anything if they login, therefore the source might be biased of a Pro gun ban person.Pro says that in a moment of rage, you can shoot a gun, and kill a person, which could have only been a fist-fight or a heated exchange (that is why DDO is good, because you can't shoot a gun to others.) Pro gives a bare assertion, and so does the internet. Rebuttal D: ViolenceThis gets rebutted to my counterplan. My opponent's argument was about violence. However, if we have special license, and you need to get them by practising like a car license, it will cause less violence. And as I said, almost anything can cause violence. After you lose, when playing a game, arguing, pressured, etc. This clearly does nothing to do, and has no compelling reason why there should be a gun ban.Rebuttal PART 2Rebuttal E: Handguns are particulary problematicPro says that handguns are used frequently, and a robber's favorite weapon. I agree that they are used like this, but that doesn't make handguns problematic. The literal meaning of handgun is "small gun". This argument does not do a impact to the resolution, as the full resolution in round 1, it is about handguns, and normal guns. Just because handguns get used a lot doesn't mean that they should be banned.Rebuttal F: Australia demonstrates how guns bans can be effectivePro says that the gun ban in Australia worked well, but this debate is about the U.S., and the amount of guns are different. The U.S. has 112 guns in 100 residents, when Australia only has 21 guns per 100 [5]. They are different countries, and different amount, therefore this cannot happen, because they are different.ConclusionI showed that my opponent's case is wrong, and all ineffective, and my counterplan is good enough to refute his arguments. I have won the ferret debate, and vote CON. Sources[1] History Ancient Civilizations, by steven pow and han chae[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...On to Pro!