in the united states, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

its going to be AC NC My opponent completely drops all of my arguments, so you can extend those out, as I will when I address the negative's case. First, my opponent has no value structure set up. thus, it is clear that you must hold my value of morality and my criterion of contractarianism highest in this debate. with that in mind, lets look to the contention debate looking to my opponents first contention, the second card that he reads says that licensing restrictions that governments impose cause people to enter the black market because people cannot afford the money or time to obtain a liscence. thus, he is contradicting himself because the plan he sets forth involves psych evaluations and liscencing. So his argument that gun restrictions will not cause black markets, but a gun ban will, is completely unwarrented. In fact, it is clear to see that banning handguns and restricting them will have the same effects in terms of the black market, so his plan is not solving for any of the harms that he describes with the affirmative. my opponent has placed the burden on himself to prove that the CP he presents is better in solving for whatever supposed harms handguns have, but in fact all he is proven is that black markets will always exist, so that does not gain him any ground. the second major problem with the first contention is that since he drops me on framework, we have to evaluate it through a contractarian standard. my opponent does not provide any link as to why we ought to retain our right to own handguns In response to my opponents first card on his second contention, the card specifically specifies assault weapons, so it is clear that this card is extratopical. furthurmore, the card continues to say that the handguns were in fact legally purchased, so when my opponent states in his analysis that california had a gun ban and it failed, this is clearly false becasue the card itself says that the purchase of the handguns was legal. also, he provides no evidence that the handguns were banned so this is clearly an unwarrented claim. next, my opponent has once again not proven that his plan will solve for the harms better than mine. The card specifically says that the tragic event started a rally for gun measures, but my opponent provides no causal link for why restrictions would solve better for this problem than a ban. so we can see that the affirmative solves for this just as much as the negatives plan. looking to his second card with other countries, there are four main problems. first, this debate is united states specific, so citing other countries is not topical. the united states has specific cultural ideas related to guns, so my opponent cannot prove that restriction would work just as well in other countries. second, my oppont claims that these restrictions caused crime rates to fall, but the card does not state that anywhere. this claim is unwarrented so you cant listen to it because he provides no evidence. thirdly, my opponent once again does not prove why the restrictions work better than the ban. as the affirmative, i would argue that whatever benefits happened in these countries could have been further intensified with a complete ban, because there would be less access to guns. all my opponent proves is that reducing handguns caused decreased crime, which begs the question of would taking them away completely have even better consequences? With my opponents third contention, there are four glaring problems. first, refering to the constitution and saying that just because it says we have the right to bear arms is an is ought logical fallacy. just because we currently have the right to bear arms in no way equates to the fact that we ought to bear arms, which is what we are debating. second, my oponents claim that the second ammendment is useful for resisting against the government is completely false. nowadays, the government has drones. a handgun is not useful for that. third, just because we have the right to bear arms, does not mean we have the right to bear handguns. under contractarianism, it is clear to see that we ought to constrain this right slightly because of the harms that i (and my opponent) outline. taking away handguns isnt even going to take away your right to bear arms anyways because handguns are not the only way to defend yourself. fourth, my opponent again contradicts himself because if his argument is that a ban on handguns would restrict our right to self defence, he is doing the exact same thing with his handgun restrictions. he doesnt prove a thing with this contention because his burden is to prove that restrictions have some added benefit to an all out ban, but it is clear that both would technically "violate" our self defence. with that in mind an affirmative ballot is still necessary because an all out ban will prevent accidental deaths with this in mind, i urge the judges to vote affirmative.