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

Since we are allowed to give new points, I will be addressing both his points in the second and third round, while offering none of my own (to be fair, since he can't refute against new points). I will touch on that voter issue of rule-breaking in my next round since I can't touch on it in this one, basically, there is a changed status quo in the affirmative I claim. More on this next round.Value: Social justice is a derivitive of normal justice (a specific class of justice), so I concede his value of social justice as being something important, while holding onto justice broadly as being more important.Standard/Criterion: I am not too sure what you are claiming about infinite regression here. I believe you are saying that we must look to past premises to see if the current one holds, but I am not seeing how this directly upholds your value of social justice directly ... you are basically just saying that we need to look at the past? I never saw clarification on this so I will assume so.Observations: I concede both of them, this is just a burdens/framework level argument and not essential to the debate.Environment:Basically, all I am hearing is that individualism (see: favoring freedom of individuals) is leading to a host of these environmental harms, through pollution and chemicals and so on and so on. However, a ban on private ownership of handguns has no solvency mechanism; to put another way, a ban on handguns doesn't have a way to solve for this chemical dumping. If individualism leads to 1/3 of all dumping, then how can we say that guns are a significant part of that 33%, when we are offered no ways to assess it? A ban on handguns, I claim, is negligible at best because we aren't solving for all of environmental issues; you aren't actually attacking the heart of individualism, because reform must occur OUTSIDE of the system (more on that later when I talk about capitalism).Then you talk about the next ecological crunch, yet again, a ban on handguns isn't something that is unique - our domination as a species isn't because we've had handguns, because we were dominate over the world in 2000 BCE -- our domination, as Daniel Quinn in My Ishmael claims, is because of agriculture. Unless you are solving for all of agriculture, you have literally no solvency mechanism here!Later on you say this quote: "if we restrict the right to own handguns, I am following the process of the society, thus achieving the common good using my value of social justice, " yet I am not too sure what the implications of this are, or even what it means at its face value. Infinite regression doesn't internally link back to social justice. If we are looking to the past (as I understand of your non-existent explanation of infinite regression), then all sorts of atrocities are justified because there is a premise justifying it from before (see: slavery, the Holocaust, and so on).Social and Pyschological Disadvantages:Berkeley's Yuriy Gorodnichenko and Gerard Roland point out that, on balance, individualism is actually a net benefit when we look at policy and society as a whole (as my opponent is claiming to be a good thing!): “individualist culture gives social status rewards to people who stand out … give a special, culturally motivated, incentive for innovation that is separate from the standard monetary incentive...As a result, the higher innovation rate eventually leads to higher levels of productivity and output in the long run compared to a collectivist culture … the advantages of individualist culture affect dynamic efficiency and thus long run growth” Further, they write: Using Hofstede’s measure of individualism, we regress the log of GDP per worker on individualism and find a strong and significant positive effect of individualism. We report in Gorodnichenko and Roland (2010) that a one standard deviation increase in individualism (say from the score of Venezuela to Greece, or from that of Brazil to Luxemburg) leads to a 60 to 87 percent increase in 7 the level of income, which is a quantitatively large effect. We also observe strong, positive correlations between individualism and measures of innovation. The results are similar when we use Schwartz’s measures of individualism. These are not simply correlations. In Gorodnichenko and Roland (2010, 2011), we provide evidence of a causal effect of individualism on innovation and measures of long run growth. Innovation directly links back to societal wellfare; without a means to improve the society, I claim, we can never actually do so! Turn this argument against them in the end analysis -- this point should go directly to me because their Scott, et. al card from 2004 is outweighed by my Gorodnichenko and Roland card from 2010, 2011.Capitalism is bad (this is my note from above)I must be honest here, I actually concede your Jerry Z. Muller 2013 card, and your Mac. Intosh (funny name) from 2000 card -- which claim that there is going to be inequality and genocide and so on, and so on (you see that I have a disdain for capitalism by my profile picture of Slavoj!). However, the link story that you are giving is incredibly weak and is actually not correct when you look at the actor of the resolution; banned is defined as being prohibited by law (I can card this if you so please), therefore the actor is the US. However, you cannot work within the system to attack it. Slavoj Zizek in Violence talks about systemic violence and how the best thing to do to attack it is nothing (so turn this to my side of the flow) or, as Bhandari of Berkeley points out in 2006, you must reform from outside the system to attack it; any inside attack of the system is flawed inherently! So, don't buy Slavoj Zizek because you hate Slovenes ... see that the affirmative is flawed by Bhandari. Don't buy Bhandari because you hate Berkeley ... see that the affirmative is flawed by Zizek (a self-proclaimed communist, might I add!).Gun violence is badYour evidence might be completely true (and if it is, I feel sorry for the families). However, we need to just cross-apply your observations saying that we need evidence from specifically *handguns*, not just any type of guns or gun violence in general, and so on. We can't weigh your Ludwig card at all because there exist no means to actually weigh it, as you concede that we can't use it! SexistWhat my opponent is claiming is flawed ... their own evidence actually claims that women are, more than ever, trying to get guns. While it may be true that saying that forcing guns on women to feel powerful is sexist, how exactly is not banning the private ownership of handguns sometihng sexist inherently? I can give you a counterplan saying that we need to fund women's health groups and so on, but it is laughable to claim that women don't want guns and that guns are actually patriarchal. You are misreading your evidence at best, misrepresenting what it is saying at worst (and I claim you are using evidence at its worst) [2]. SuicideNo comment -- my right to life and ending life is sacred. Taking away the right to life and the right to die is against societal wellfare -- if someone wants to die by their own hands, then why should we take steps to remove that ability when all that happens is that they are benefited (as they want this in the end?). I believe that suicide is a tragedy, however, it is a right of people to end their lives -- governmental regulation of the right to life doesn't solve for people feeling that they are oppressed and so on. Let people live their lives, and maybe they will claim them to be important.Thank you. [1]. http://eml.berkeley.edu...;(Credit to famousdebater)[2]. http://www.attn.com...;