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

Alright, so I will respond the my opponent's rebuttal, extend my own, and give voters. My opponent calls "hogwash" on the fact that handgun violence against women deserve a higher priority over men, but extend VPC 11, where it says banning handguns is uniquely key to preventing femicides. If you don't buy that, a maybe women don't deserve higher priority over men, then I still prevent femicides, regardless. Moving on. I agree, the population doesn't want to ban handguns. So what? It's not a moral reason to not ban handguns. Since my opponent concedes that the value of the round is morality, that's what we're both trying to achieve. While I prevent deaths, my opponent simply states the population doesn't want it. Preventing deaths is more morally justified. Next, my opponent says in his third link, handguns are used in self protection, even though I have significantly contradicting evidence saying handguns are used in self-protecting in less than 1% of all cases. So, this comes down to evidence. Dixon 11 has the study of comprehensive comparative data, three separate studies, and a review of the literature by the National Academy of Science. Unless my opponent can prove his evidence is more trustworthy, handguns are almost never used in self-protection. My opponent says what will keep criminals from keeping the guns. I have two responses to this. First, banning handguns will solve for the illicit market, since they get guns from people who purchased handguns legally. Second, my opponent's point is not unique. Murder is against the law, but people still commit it anyways. So if anything, banning handguns will solve the illicit market. The definition of a handgun is a "small gun (such as a revolver or a pistol) designed to be held and shot with one hand" as defined by Merriam Webster. And again, Dixon 11 has significant evidence and studies proving that America does have the highest homicide rate. My opponent says that if we ban handguns, people will just switch to knives. Cross-apply Dixon 11 "" criminals won"t switch to other weapons because handguns are uniquely cheap and concealable "" and prefer our methodology. Empirically denied in the context of gun buyback programs "" that"s Ramzy et al 15. Most people won"t switch weapons "" there"s only a risk we solve "" try or die for the aff "" that"s NY Times 15. Even criminals would give up their guns if they were in poverty so that they could get some money "" also means we have an internal link to solving poverty. Finally, it's empirically denied in Canada LaFollette 2K Handguns are disproportionately used in homicides and in robberies. The experience in Canada suggests that criminals will not switch to long guns if handguns are unavailable. Finally, the point of the buyback is to have an add-on to solvency. Without a buyback, what will make citizens want to give up their handguns? A buyback is first of all, proven to be extremely effective in Australia, and second, it makes citizens happier to give up their handguns. On to my case. Extend NY Times 15, I still have a chance of solvency by reducing homicides and femicides. Extend LaFollete 2K, banning handguns solves for the illicit market. Extend Subpoint C and D of Contention 2, buybacks are extremely effective. I achieve morality better by reducing homicides, and by minimizing the oppression put into place by femicides. I've responded to all of my opponent's arguments. The three easiest ways to base this round off of is this. 1. I have a chance of solvency for banning handguns. 2. My opponent concedes that buybacks are extremely effective. 3. I achieve morality better. Because you have no reason to vote for my op