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

To quote famousdebater from round 2: "Framework My 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." This counter rebuttal begins with the suggestion that I don't need a framework to argue nothing should be done. Indeed, some elaborate philosophical framework - with the conclusion, therefore we should do nothing - is likely to distract from the inevitability of this conclusion. Next, I'd like to post some links that were deleted when I posted my round 2 arguments. In order they are: <https://en.wikipedia.org...; <https://en.wikipedia.org...; <http://plato.stanford.edu...; <http://www.businessinsider.com...; I hope they are not deleted again. That would be embarrassing. Next, I'd like to take the time to congratulate my opponent on arguing a very difficult position with style, if not much actual substance. Bit of a backhanded compliment - as it turns out, but it wasn't meant that way. His familiarity with the format of these formal debates is just about his only advantage - and equally, my only disadvantage. At first I thought maybe I was getting an easy ride first time around the track - but I'm beginning to suspect famousdebater made the mistake of thinking that something he believes is right and necessary would make his an easy position to uphold. In fact, it's not. I'm not suggesting, dear voters - that you should have no sympathy for the difficulty of famousdebater's position, nor am I suggesting that you should not admire the skill with which he has executed the task as he sees it, but I do urge you to punish his errors, the first of which was, thinking it would be easy to do right - and see through his style to the the fact that he has not proven the contention that private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Further, I would ask you, the voter to recognize that he had no need whatsoever to set his arguments in the terms he did; no need for an unprovable philosophical understanding of the word 'ought' - when a common idea of the term was employed throughout the opening remarks I made, and posted first - despite his familiarity with the format, and my ignorance. It is to famousdebater's detriment, not mine, and I think you must agree dear voter, fatally detrimental that he has failed to mention the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America - that establishes the right to bear arms, but instead spent his time and energies formulating a plan to achieve a ban he believes is right. He had no need to formulate a plan. The question is not how handguns would be banned, but whether they ought to be. I knew this of course, which is why I asked the question: How do you suppose the estimated 310 million guns already in private ownership in America can be accounted for and confiscated - if that is indeed, what you are suggesting is done? If not, what should be done - and how would this account for the 310 million guns already out there? He is an intelligent young man, but perhaps yet lacks for the intellectual confidence to refuse to be led down the wrong path - as he has been here. These are his errors, and I ask that you punish them - not because there is not much to praise here - and certainly not because you think perhaps something should be done about gun violence. I'm asking that you vote upon the debate rather than the issue, and punish famousdebater, ultimately because he has not proven the contention that handguns ought to be banned. He has not even presented a very compelling case that they should be banned - in common parlance, but presented statistics as facts, as evidence of a philosophical idea of moral fact. The dry statistic that 3.2 people per 100,000 are killed by gun violence, fails as a moral fact in contrast to the statistic that 16.2 people per 100, 000 die from flu. All of which, brings me to this: 'This has the startling implication that you would save upto five times more lives by requiring people carry a handkerchief, than you would banning them from owning guns!' This is why there's no such thing as a moral fact, and if you accept that, I would suggest you cannot but vote Con. Thank you for your time.