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

Lets look at my opponents attacks. In response to my core value my opponent says that morality includes lives and is more paramount. My opponent was really trying to uphold oppression but let explore life. Even if you agree Morality is better because it includes life you will still vote Negative. My opponents debate hinges on this idea that handguns kill more people than protected. For one, we have conflicting statistics whether the whole premise of his debate is true or not. Also, voting AFF allows for the government to go against democracy and the people which makes our whole system tenuous. If they can act like that in this decision who's to say they won't ignore democracy in other circumstances? This puts lives and security in jeopardy. Even if you aren't buying all that I said previously, a negative vote allows everyone a chance to life. My opponent would like to say its more deadly to own a handgun then it helps but what about the people this isn't true for. Even if for most people handguns are bad (which I prove otherwise later) we ignore the people they do save. Then, my opponent upholds stopping oppression while he is ignoring the people that handguns do good for. (more later) My opponent has several attacks on my contention one so I will address the attacks that seem to be the most paramount, but don't hold me accountable for answering all when there were so many attacks. 1) My opponent says stopping oppression trumps the constitution. If you believe this is true then you have no choice but to vote for the CON because defying the constitution corrupts our own government and tells people they really have no power in reality. 2) My opponent says that there's debate over the intent of the constitution and that the constitution may not be moral. However, in 2008 Heller V Columbia the supreme court agreed that handguns are indeed protected. Also, I talk all about the relevancy this still has today in contention 2. 3) My opponent says that the constitution doesn't apply to everything. This doesn't really matter because it does apply to this. He brings up gay marriage but that wasn't really a concept back then. Yes ideas change but again, I show why the amendment still holds relevance. Basically, it still remains that the is being defied and that does matter. I access all of my Framework with this idea. In response to my second contention my opponent says that hand guns are rarely used for self defense. These statistics where from Violence Policy Center and are all from the 1990's. If my opponent wants to use these statistics they will need more up to date figures. Also, if we look behind the ideas here my opponent is saying that because handguns kill a lot of people they should not be allowed. However, handguns, no matter how large or small that number is in actuality, do protect several people. Let's assume my opponents worst case scenario where handguns don't protect many people but kill a lot. By voting Negative you are allowing everyone a chance to protect their own life. Otherwise, on the AFF we are assuming that the government would be protecting them. Even if handguns do kill more people you will still want people to have the right to their own life. I am protecting ones RIGHT to protect there own life, not supremely making generalizations to make a moral end. My opponent believes he is helping the most but leaves everyone else helpless. When you vote CON you are voting for equality in the protection of life. In response to the buyback program, this wouldn't ever get everyone pumped for the idea and even if it is more impressive it is not grounded in reality in the moment. If you want to debate policy then more information should show how plausible this is. This isn't a huge winning/loosing point in this debate so lets look to framework and morals as this is a moral debate. Now lets look at my own case once more. A large area of clash for their debate has been the Value Criterion of minimizing oppression. They point out how handguns kill more than they are worth. This completely ignores the people who this is not true for. Give everyone a realistic chance to protect themselves. I have clearly laid out, and it has not been contested, that a handguns portatbility makes it a great self defense weapon. Again, realize my opponent's stats are outdated in saying that handguns are rarely used for self defense. For every instance that a handguns is used for selfdefense it become the moral choice and saved a life. Its not like we are telling everyone they need a handgun so my opponents argument about a handgun being detrimental to some doesn't mean we should ignore those it saves! My opponent brings up the black-market. His 4 warrants for this need to be contested. 1) My opponent 1st argues that this point makes sense since criminals buy from non-criminals so its stops the black-market at the source. But in this case, the guns are already out of the bag and in circulation of criminals. Criminals can now sell criminals guns. 2) My opponent says that stolen guns make it worse. Again, there are already countless guns in circulation. Almost 1 per american. 3) My opponent argues that a ban would at least make the black-market cost increase: But in this case, even if less accessible, they are still a threat. 4) Finally, my opponent thinks that since there would be less overall there would be less death. The problem being that we would actually just take every handgun from good people and none from the criminals. This point completely backfires on my opponents arguments about homicide and claims about protecting life. Realistically, there is not way to retain every handgun and the ones still in circulation will be heavily in the criminals who wouldn't respect this law like they don't respect several. In response to my point about life quality versus quantity my opponent says that we can't improve life without life to begin with. This isn't what we are talking about. A handgun ban doesn't save everyone and not banning handguns definitely doesn't kill anyone. At this point how many are being killed doesn't really flow one way or another so we look to process. If I led a country I could but everyone in a titanium box making sure no one every got killed besides natural causes. This isn't really protecting life. Since you can safely vote either way without killing everyone think about rights. I have shown that I support the right to life. Also, everyone's lives will be better off if they have a government that they can trust and goes through due process. If they intact a handguns banishment they are out of their jurisdiction! I will now go over a few key points in this debate and why they all flow Negative. 1) The first thing we need to evaluate are moral frameworks. More opponent upholds morality and minimizing oppression and I uphold Government legitimacy and Adherence to democracy. First, my opponent cannot access his own framework. My opponent ignores the people who handguns help and gives them no alternative. This is oppressive. My opponent would argue that handguns give men a way to terrorize women, but banning handguns gives the women no way to protect themselves while men will still have other means. Don't let my opponent site Australia here in his last speech, they banned all guns not handguns. Actually, whether you agree with my framework of my opponents you will want to vote CON in todays debate. If you agree with morality and oppression, then I fully fulfill it all by making sure no one is oppressed by a government out of jurisdiction, illegitimate government, and people without a realistic way to protect themselves. Also, I uphold my original framework. My opponent's only attack on democracy has been that the constitution is questionable in how it acts today. Look to my points about that. Other than that, is still stands that if we don't adhere to democracy, which is the only way a democracy stays a legitimate government, then our government becomes more oppressive. Without adhering to democracy the people become skeptical of the government and the government become less moral. When looking to the moral debate I am winning either way. 2) Another large area of clash has been the ideas of homicide. My opponent has argued that handguns kill so many that they ought to be banned. I have shown that handguns save many and as they increase the number of homicides have decreased. My statistic is recent and from america. My opponents is old and from other countries, but perhaps more "imperial". No matter how you draw the line there is no way of knowing which way it goes entirely. For that reason we are going to be looking at process. When you vote con you are allowing for democratic process and intent, as well as the will of the people. This is why handguns OUGHT not be banned. There is no solvency for life on either side, therefore when you vote todays look to process and moral framework. For these reasons I can only see a CON vote for today Finally, I would just like to remind voters not to vote on any NEW points in my opponents final speech since I will have no official opportunity to address them. In LD debate which we are styling this debate off of, new points in the last speech are considered abusive. Otherwise, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It has been very enjoyable and I would be happy to debate again. (: Thanks to all voters who take time to read this also!