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

As you read these arguments remember, the LD style debate is not a debate where facts prevail over philosophy, but where philosophy trumps facts. Feel free to ask me in comments for sources if you would like themNow my opponent accepts my definitions, but he does not provide a criterion… Thus, he must use my criterion of the Categorical Imperative. Rebuttals:“I'd like to assert that people can use guns for self-defense and deterrence against criminals.”Answer- As I stated earlier “Handguns are commonly associated with defense, and as a result contribute to violence in society. "God may have made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.” describes how handguns have fooled society, Samuel Colt, inventor of the handgun for years was unable to discover any demand for his perfect weapon for militaristic countries so, Colt created the demand. He engraved guns with heroic scenes, such as a man protecting his wife and children against a pack of savages, armed only with a Colt revolver. This disposition is still associated with handguns today. As a matter of fact, protection, according to PEW research center, is now the reason that handgun ownership is so common, and as a result, society has become more militarized”The examples of England, the Philippines, are irrelevant as this debate is in the framework of the United States. The countries of England and the Philippines have not established a militaristic society, like the United States has. Thus, the examples of other countries will not be reflected in the United States, and are deemed irrelevant. “Just wanted to say that America isn't in the top 100 countries for homicide. The top ten countries have either strict gun control or a ban on guns”Answer- Maybe not for homicide in general, but for homicide by gun, The United States ranks 5th in the world. Below Venezuela and above South Africa. http://www.washingtonpost.com...My opponent values safety and protecting lives, but Suicide Rates are shown to be higher in high gun statesStates with heavier gun prevalence have much higher rates of suicide ("Firearm Access Is a Risk Factor for Suicide."Means Matter. Harvard University School of Public Health, 11 Sept. 2012. Web. 14 July 2015.) Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states. For example, one study (Miller 2007) used survey-based measures of state household firearm ownership (from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) while controlling for state-level measures of mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, and other factors associated with suicide. The study found that males and females and people of all age groups were at higher risk for suicide if they lived in a state with high firearm prevalence. This is perhaps most concrete when looking not at rates or regression results but at raw numbers. The authors compared the 40 million people who live in the states with the lowest firearm prevalence (HI, MA, RI, NJ, CT, NY) to about the same number living in the states with the highest firearm prevalence (WY, SD, AK, WV, MT, AR, MS, ID, ND, AL, KY, WI, LA, TN, UT). Overall suicides were almost twice as high in the high-gun states, even though non-firearm suicides were about equal. Suicides in the 15 U.S. States with the Highest vs. the 6 U.S. States with the Lowest Average Household Gun Ownership (2000-2002) High-Gun States/Low-Gun States Population; 39 million/40 million Household Gun Ownership; 47%/15% Firearm Suicide;9,749/2,606 Non-Firearm Suicide 5,060/5,446 Total Suicide: 14,809/8,052 So, I ask how can suicide be protecting lives? In simplicity, suicide is not protecting lives as it's definition is the act of killing oneself deliberately(Oxford Dictionary) Thus, it is the act of killing which is defined as an act of causing death (Oxford Dictionary). Life is defined as the existence of an individual human being, and if an individual human being is killing himself then he is not protecting life. Thus, because gun presence and suicide is correlated then the Con is not fulfilling his own value. "When one examines the 48 metropolitan areas with one million or more residents and for which a full set of FBI crime statistics are available, homicide rates range from 1.4 per 100,000 residents in the Portland, Oregon area, to 19 per 100,000 in the New Orleans area. Burglary rates range from 248 per 100,000 in the New York City area (often considered to be a relatively high-crime area) to 1196 per 100,000 in the Memphis, Tennessee area (often considered to be a relatively low-crime area). So much for preconceived notions" What is the point of this statement? It is not warranted... But what is worse is that the same source later says "The overall homicide rate, among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states. This certainly does not confirm the gun control = higher violent crime hypothesis." So, my opponent didn't warrant his statement and what is worse he took his quote out of context and it helped me outBut my opponent's quote led me to an interesting (the same) source which helps my case... "In 2014, 328 persons were murdered in New York City. Yet this figure is down a breathtaking 85 percent since 1990, when 2245 homicides were recorded" This shows that the SAFe Act and other gun legislation passed in New York have been effective in stopping crime. The site continues to say "The latest homicide figures for these cities (NY, LA, Chicag0) are the lowest since solid data began to be collected in the 1960s." So, what can be seen is that gun legislation has been effective in stopping crime in NY, LA, and Chicago.http://www.huffingtonpost.com... As you read his cases remember that:My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of showing how it is not MORALLLY acceptable to ban guns. My opponent is using my criterion (due to a lack of one) of the Categorical Imperative, but he has not shown how he has fulfilled the CI. Whereas, I have fuffiled not only the CI, but my burden of proof.