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

Thank you autocorrect for posting your rebuttals. I will address them in the final round. In this round my focuss will be on refuting my opponent's first round arguments. FrameworkMy opponent provides no framework and therefore due to the fact that there is no alternative framework presented you ought to view my framework as the correct framework for the debate since it is the only framework presented. This is problematic for my opponent since under my framework guns are bad since they are designed to kill people, and they do. The ResolutionLet's take a look at just what the resolution says because some analysis is required. The resolution requires me to prove that there should be a ban on PRIVATELY owned guns. Now let's look at what the definition of a PRIVATELY owned possession (in this case guns) is. "belonging to an individual person or people, as opposed to belonging to a government or to a business." [1]Now that the necessary clarifications have been made I will begin with my rebuttals. Positive AcknowledgmentI do acknowlegde that there are positives of owning a gun. That is why this is such a highly controversial and debated topic. However the debate resolution is structured in the form of an "on balance" resolution. Meaning that with all points considered guns should be banned because overall (with both positives and negatives included) we see guns as having more negatives than positives. I am sure that both me and Con understand that there are positives and negatives to this issue however the disagreement here regardes whether the positives outweigh the negatives or vice versa. Since I am advocating the private ban on guns only, I am willing to allow the police and hunters to keep their guns on them as their guns are not privately owned and therefore they can still have guns. So to answer my opponent's questions: Autocorrect: who's guns would he want to ban? Me: Everyone that has a privately owned gun (as the resolution clearly states). Autocorrect: How would he decide who legitimately held firearms, and who had no valid reason to own a gun?Me: I would view those that own private guns as illegitimately holding guns and I would view those that don't have private guns as legitimately owning them. Since hunters, the police, the army and other state owned operations will have guns, people will be safe from wild animals. Unless my opponent can put a figure on how many people will die then this contention bares little weight upon the resolution since the normative ethics based framework is how voters should be juding (since it's the only debate framework set) and due to the fact that it is based on individualism this means that we need to balance lives and without a clear number the argument has no impact. Balance Of PrioritiesMy opponent lists the money that the firearms industry is worth. However, again, if we look back at the framework (which still stands because there is no alternative and we need a debate framework for this to be voted on), we can clearly see that under individualism, lives matter and should be considered as a priority. Money should not (and is not) considered as superior to human lives. The PlanTo answer the final question regarding confiscation of guns I will redirect my opponent to my arguments where I state my plan. Since it willl be done over a long period of time this means that collection of guns will not all be done at once. There will be minimal protest and riots and the ones that do occur will be done in small quantity across the 30 year period. This makes it easier for the police force to manage. Those that do not hand their guns in will be jailed if they are found with one because (just like drugs) they should be considered as dangerous and as illegal items. Just because some will not give their guns in, it doesn't mean that they should remain legal. The issue is comparable to drugs. Yes some people have drugs but that doesn't mean that we should make them legal just because some people will keep on using them illegally. Just like murder, some people murder but that doesn't mean that we should make it legal. Sources[1] http://www.debate.org...;