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

Lets start with my opponent's case. This debate hinges around whether handguns protect or save more people. My opponent said our statistics are conflicting. I've proven why you need to prefer my evidence; meanwhile, my opponent doesn't make any stand on that debate. I've won that my evidence is more significant, so because my better evidence shows handguns kill more people then protected. On to my opponent's first contention. One of the most important arguments is that the elastic clause is in the Constitution. This means that if necessary we can change a part of the Constitution. My evidence shows the extreme negative effects of handguns, mainly killing more than protecting. My opponent's only defense for his contention 2 says that my evidence isn't updated. However, first off, none of my evidence is from the 1990's. They're all 2000 up until today. If you for some reason don't buy that, evidence from the 1990's doesn't mean it's not true. Therefore, I've successfully proven that handguns are rarely used in self-defense. Also, my opponent says he's protecting people's right to live. However, I'm literally protecting their lives. Handguns kill a significantly large amount of people, and in my case, NY Times 15 says these kinds of brutal weapons need to be outlawed. Finally, even if you do buy that my opponent is protecting people's right to live, there are other people who might want to end their lives. By enforcing a buyback, I am restricting those people's ability to do so, thereby protecting people's lives. Let's go to my case. My opponent again repeats that I ignore people who are protected. Look back to my Donohue 15 evidence, 1% of people used handguns successfully in self-defense. If you vote neg, you're voting for that 1%. If you vote aff, you vote for that 99%. My opponent says my evidence it's outdated. It's from 2014. I disagree with my opponent's statement. Let's go to my illicit market argument. Banning handguns solves for two reasons a. Criminals can only get handguns by buying them from people who bought them legally " a ban solves the root cause b. Restricting legal access to guns decreases the supply of guns in the illicit market thereby significantly raising the costs of handguns in the illicit market deterring access to criminals I urge you to vote over quantity over quality. I've shown you how many people die from handguns out of accidents, suicides, and homicides. Without handguns, these deaths won't exist. And, I've shown how handguns are oppressive towards women, so if you vote neg, you encourage oppression towards women, which isn't quality of life. Now on the reasons why you vote aff today. This whole debate is comprised of whether the aff or neg causes more deaths. I'm the only one showing why my evidence of homicides and death are statistically significant. You have to prefer my evidence, so I've proven why handguns cause more deaths. I also win on framework. If you vote neg, you continue to allow men to terrorize women with handguns. This is oppressive, which is awful for quality of life. I've proven that a buyback isn't undemocratic, so I also win that a buyback improves quantity of life and quality of life. These are both of the reasons that you vote aff. Finally, I want to emphasize my opponent's comments. Of course, if I made any new points or arguments, don't vote on it, because that's not allowed. I would also like to thank my opponent for this amazing debate, it's been challenging and fun. And, thank you to the voters who had the time to analyze this debate.