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

So in this round, I will provide final reponses to my opponents contentions and his refutations. My opponent mentions how since I didnt provide a new framework, his stays. However, I have nullified his FW for this debate and therefore there is no FW. He then attacks my card about how Nazis also wanted to kill the Jews. First of all, the frame of this debate is USA. Second of all, most of the people opposed the genocide of Jews. That is why many nations fought against Hitler and ensured the freedom of Jews. That is why the United Nations were create; to ensure that that never repeats again. Now, people of America need their unalienable and they are ready to fight for them. Our government shall not infringe the second amendment. Next, my opponent refutes my refutation by saying that suicides are impulsive acts. They absolutely are but taking away guns ONLY will not stop the issue with suicides. Suicide is possible with other weapons, including cutting oneself and overdose. He then brings up the FW again but since it has been nullified, that argument is invalid. About the child, even if we take guns away from the adult, he will still be able to commit suicide. We can not force life upon someone who does not want it. The child will yes suffer at the death of the adult but must the adult be forced to live because of the child? No. In addition, he will be able to still commit suicide after a gun ban. My opponent states that I have not provided solvency with the plan to educate people on the proper use of guns. However, the cause of most accidental homicides is people not knowing how to properly handle and live with a gun. My plan will solve this issue sinceA. Only the sane will have gun rights and B. Those who own guns will know how to use them and therefore prevent accidental homicides. My opponent than states that there is no proof that a black market will happen. However, there is. The supply and demand cycle works very simply. There will be demand and the black market will supply. A ban on guns will be forming a black market and taking away guns from the lw abiding citizens of the USA. My opponent next refutes my point saying that there was no evidence which stated that the restriction didnt work. However, it is quite clear that there was a BAN in Cali. In addition, my plan has worked in numerous different countries. We are going to restrict guns in the USA but take example from other nations. In nations such as France, Germany, Finland and many more. The USA should take examples from these nations in which the crime rate drastically decreased. My opponent also states how if I and some buds resist an oppressive government, the government will clearly annihilate us. However, my opponent clearly fails to see what a revolution is. A revolution is when the WHOLE NATION is against an oppressive government. Let me give an example. France. The French during the revolution had lack of resources and absolutely nothing. Yet, they defeated the oppressive government. In addition, the USA revolution. We had absolutely no resources, poorly trained soldiers. Yet, we defeated the British who have oppressed us. Finally, the Haiti slaves. The Haiti slaves who had NOTHING were able to resist slavery and the oppressive government. Allocation of PointsConduct- TiedS&G- TiedConvincing Arguments- CONPoints of Pro-1. FW which was nullfied by con2. Homicides (suicide and accidents)Both of these were refuted by con. Points of Con-1. Black market. My opponent tries to show why it will not form however, as given from my speeches, it clearly will.2. Other nations. My opponent attacks this by saying it is out of frame. However, I was pointing out how it worked their and therefore must work in USA, therefore that my point is standing. 3. Constitution. My opponent points out how we are unable to oppose the tyranny however, there was clear proof of how we were.4. My plan which my opponent did not even attempt to attack.