Fire v.s. bsh: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Thanks, Fire. At this time, I will be rebutting Con's case.FRAMEWORKCon's entire second argument has no link whatsoever to self-defense. So if self-defense is the standard, you should not evaluate--at all--Fire's "economy" and "Waste of time" arguments because they don't weigh under a self-defense mechanism.A framework is a mechanism by which we can weigh the arguments in a round. But Con does not use self-defense as a weighing mechanism, rather he uses it as one of the arguments that should be weighed. This is shown by the fact that he includes a bunch of arguments that simply don't weigh under a self-defense standard, implying that he feels there are concerns beyond self-defense that ought to be weighed in this round. Consequentialism is thus a better fit, because it can evaluate a broader litany of points.Finally, Fire just gives us no reason to buy into his standard. He just kind of assumes we should all use it.ARGUMENTSI. Self-DefenseA. Guns are not helpful in defending oneself"77 percent of shots fired in self-defense situations will miss their targets, even when fired by trained gun-handlers. Roughly 67 percent of the time, the bad guy is the first one to use lethal force. They ambush us...The average violent attack is over in 3 seconds. They are 'blitz' attacks, designed to blindside and overwhelm us...93 percent of single-gunshot wounds are survivable, which goes against the common expectation that one bullet is enough to stop a threat. This assumption was reflected in the study, which found 'participants with no skills were not only slow to fire, but did not fire enough shots to effectively neutralize the threat they faced.'" [1] This evidence has several impacts: (1) crimes occur too quickly for us to draw, possibly load, and fire a gun, making guns utterly useless; (2) even when fired, guns are far more likely to miss than hit their targets; and (3) even when the hit their targets, people may not incapacitate their assailant.We should also be skeptical that in tense situations, we would be able to use a gun rationally and effectively. If I were out at the mall and a shooting occurred, I can guarantee you that I would be panicking. I would be acting on raw fear, not on any rational assessment of the situation. Were I to use a gun in that state, I would probably just lob of shots in the vicinity of the gun fire; in theory, I am just as likely to hit a bystander as the attacker. That is not wise gun use, and it could only inflate the number of deaths resulting from the fracas.In fact, if the goal of effective self-defense is to make victims safer, then you should vote Pro, because, as I've shown, guns make people less safe.B. The two-million figure is dubiousFire claims some 2 million defensive gun uses per year. There are, however, some excellent reasons to doubt this number: "Kleck also ignores the fact that his results repeatedly fail tests of external validity. In our original article, we mention that Kleck’s data would require, impossibly, that gun owners use their gun in self-defense in more than 100 percent of burglaries...According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck's supposed DGUs hiding?" [2]Moreover, Kleck's data is derived from a survey, where people self-report their gun use information to the researchers. Many people may present their gun use as legitimate self-defense, but that does not mean that the use actually was legitimate self-defense. "Kleck himself admitted...that 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun uses reported in the survey were likely illegal--meaning the firearm was used to intimidate or harm another person rather than for legitimate self-defense." [3]As an alternative, "an analysis of five years' worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number [of defensive gun uses] much, much lower--about 67,740 times a year." [4]C. Alternatives to guns allow for effective self-defenseSalt guns, which discharge a dust containing chemical irritants, do not need to be aimed as accurately as firearms because the dust will disperse and cover a wider field than a single bullet could. These weapons can incapacitate an attacker for 15-30 minutes, giving the victim time to escape or the police time to arrive. [5] TASERs are also effective, and debilitate their targets around 85% of the time. [6] Both of these alternatives are non-lethal, so that missed shots do not result in innocent casualties.II. TimeA. Reduce vs. EliminateFire writes: "Even though we ban them, they will still use them." Consider that we have banned murder, yet murders still happen. Should we therefore lift the ban on murders because we cannot stop them all? Obviously not, otherwise the number of murders occurring would balloon, and result in millions of deaths, something Con and I could both agree would be tragic.The purpose of a handgun ban is not to prevent all ownership handguns--even in a country the size of Andorra that would be impossible. Someone could always be hiding one somewhere. The purpose of the ban is to reduce the number of these weapons out there and to reduce the ill-effects that their ownership can cause as a consequence. Mandatory buy-back schemes, like the one in Australia, offered money for guns, adding a carrot to the stick of government penalty, and increasing the incentive for people to comply. It is perfectly possible for the U.S. to significantly reduce, either through voluntary compliance or confiscation, the number of handguns in the country. We don't need to track the 300 million, just the handgun portion of that. And, if the number of gun-owning households is decreasing, as Con says it is, that makes the task much easier for the government. B. TurnYou can also turn this argument against Con. If he thinks we should not do something because it will meet resistance, than no gun control legislation beyond the obviously inadequate status quo will be passed. Interest groups like the NRA, which wield an incredible amount of clout, have opposed virtually all attempts to further regulate guns in America. [7] No doubt Con's propose gun license (see counterplan) would be stonewalled indefinitely. Given this, Con can either choose to defend his license argument, or his possibility argument, but not both.C. OtherCon says the program will cost money, but offers no analysis as to how much, or what the impact of that will be. Spending money is not inherently a bad thing, and it can be quite good if it saves lives.Also, Australia illustrates how a large country with a lot of guns can successfully implement a gun ban that reduces the volume of guns and guns' ill-effects.III. EconomyA. JobsBanning ownership of handguns does not mean that U.S. manufacturers cannot make handguns for sale abroad or to the military. According to Con's source, handguns only make up about half of guns manufactured in the U.S., and since foreign consumption won't be disallowed, only a fraction of that fraction of manufacturing will actually stop. Subsidization of gun alternatives, and increase demand in them following a handgun ban, may actually create additional jobs. So, in reality, the impacts Fire is garnering here are small to nonexistent.B. BlackmarketThe legal gun market supplies the illegal gun market. Therefore, by curtailing the legal market we can starve the illegal market of its gun supply. For instance, "one off the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf...The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers...According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from [Federal Firearms Licensees]. The report states that 'of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid 'time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity." [8] Banning the guns would end straw purchases and access by FFLs to the banned merchandise. Another important source of illegal guns is theft, and by taking the guns out of private ownership, you reduce the possibility of theft as well. [8] Thus, a ban is likely to reduce the existing black market, rather than to cause an inflation of the black market.III. ConclusionIn the end, guns are not useful self-defense tools. Banning guns is more likely to make people safe than maintaining the status quo. Banning guns will depress the supply of guns in the black market, and a ban is something that is empirically shown (through Australia) to be capable of reducing guns.SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - Michael White and Justin Ready, “The TASER as a Less Lethal Force Alternative: Findings on Use and Effectiveness in a Large Metropolitan Police Agency,” Police Quarterly, 20077 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...9 - http://tinyurl.com...Thus, I affirm. Thank you, and please Vote Pro! Over to Fire...