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

Let's begin! FrameworkMy framework will be mostly centered around self-defence. Self-Defence: the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as bycountering blows or overcoming an assailant [1]. Self Defence basically means that if you are getting harmed, then for self-defence, you can protect yourself. A gun is a very good example for this. I won’t be talking much about this right now, because I will have a whole new argument for this. My argument will be about that guns are the perfect example for self-defence. More info of self-defence. : [2], [3], [4]Argument 1: Self-DefenceMy first argument will be about self-defence, which is linked into the framework. I explained what self-defence is, and provided a definition of self-defence. I will expand more upon of this, and my argument will be about why private ownership of guns are the best example of self-defence, and why we should allow this. My argument will be about why guns have good self-defence. Using guns for self-defence is much. Nearly two million defensive gun uses per year [8]. Lets give a realistic example. You live in a home in the United States. A robber tries to come in your house, and is threatening you to give all the precious things you have, or the robber will kill you. You are getting threatened. You can shoot him with a gun. Many states and countries allow self-defence, so if you get harmed, then for self-defence, you can protect yourself with a gun. Without self-defence, and the use of a gun, the robber will take all of your things or kill you. You can use a knife, but it is much harder, and the robber will block it. So, for self-defence, which is allowed and encouraged, and gun is very good, so it should be legal for the private ownership of handguns, because handguns are more tiny, and quicker than big guns. This makes an impact to the resolution because I showed that handguns are actually useful, and they shouldn't be banned, and gave self-defence, which is a law, and approved. You can use guns for self-defence. Because I told that private ownership of handguns is used for self-defence, which is allowed and is the best way to defend yourself, therefore, handguns should be allowed. Vote for Pro. Argument 2: Waste of timeMy second argument will be about banning this will be a waste of time. Let’s first see how many guns Americans have. “According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all [5]. This computes to 93 guns per 100 people. In the same article: "But that doesn't mean every man, woman and child has a gun. The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes. " The graph shows a decline from 50% in 1975 to 31% in recent years. [6]”Guns are used by too many people of the U. S. Even though we ban them, some people will still have them illegally. Even though we ban them, they will still use them. Banning will do not point. It will cost more money if you ban it, but not much need because no one will follow it, and they can’t check over 300 million guns. This does an impact to the resolution, because if we do actually ban, it will be pointless because of the numbers, people wil still use guns. Argument 3. Ecomony ImpactMy last argument will be about the economy. Handguns are currently legal in the United States. The U. S. gets many money from gun companies. There are lots of gun companies in the U. S. and they all help the economy. “All told, the firearms industry contributes more than $33 billion to the U. S. economy and supports about 220,000 jobs [7]. ”That is tons. The U. S. government gets much money from the gun companies, and it is for tons of jobsWhat if we ban this? Then this much people, all the people in the companies will have no job. They will be dependent for the government. This makes the economy lower. The few millions of homeless people need a job, and they need to depend on the government, also all the money, 33 billion dollars from the companies will not be earned, and will not go to the U. S. economy. This does a major economic impact for the U. S. Therefore, we should not ban firearms, or all guns in the U. S. Also, if we ban guns, a black market will form. Guns will illegally be sold for 3 or 4 times it’s cost. It’s bad because, it is illegal, it is for expensive, and the ban is useless. So, this is only good for people who sell it illegally, and bad to everyone else. This does an impact to the resolution, because if we ban guns, then the economy will be hurt, and we shouldn't make an economy impact, when banning guns has a impact to economy, therefore, we should not ban handguns/ guns. ConclusionI have shown successfully why guns are useful, they are useful for self-defence, and why a gun ban is useless, because there are so many guns in the U. S, 300 million, and some will still have them which makes banning useless. I showed if you ban guns, it will do a major harm to the economy. I showed one good thing about guns, and 2 bad things about gun banning. Therefore, it is 3 good things about guns, therefore, vote for CON! If you write "Vote Pro", think again, and "Vote Pro, VOTE CON! !! Sources[1] . http://www.dictionary.com...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://www.alljujitsu.com... [5] . http://www.npr.org... [6] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] . http://www.theblaze.com...[8] . http://www.guncite.com...;