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

Hello, In this rebuttal I will respond to my opponents arguments while still supporting mine. First of all my opponent agreed to my case so the voter should disregard ALL of his/her arguments for the rest of the case. My value convinced even him/her, therefore he cannot make anymore arguments without contradicting himself. Despite this I am going to respond for the sake of debate. Every year over 10,000 people die from gun related incidents such as homicide. Did you know, however, that because of the ability to use firearms in self defense over 2.5 million people are protected form potential murderers, thieves and muggers? My opponent used a generic situation for his argument against my case (Refer to Round 2, 1st post). Over 71% of all gun related shooting are between two previously convicted felons out for blood. Only 29% of gun related shooting victims do not know their attacker. This leads into my main theme for this rebuttal: It is not the gun that shoots the person it is the person that pulls the trigger. This theme promotes my value of Human Rights in two key ways. First it upholds the value because when guns are used in the right way, when the person behind the trigger is using the weapons to help others (Stopping a thief) or to defend themselves we can see how guns, with the right intent, can be used to uphold human rights. The second key factor in my theme is that if you look at the figures objectively, guns are used more for good than for evil. Take what I said earlier, 2.5 million people are protected from potential crimes because of their guns. They were able to uphold human rights because they had a good intent when they used the gun. I would like some evidence on the "There is only about less than 1% chance that yo can shoot the stranger" phrase my opponent used because after looking I could not find any credible sources for the information. In my opponents second argument he basically states my theme: That the intent of the shooter dictates the aftermath. I believe that the evidence referring to the 2.5 million crimes stopped is sufficient rebuttal enough to not only refute my opponents second argument but also prove them wrong. My opponent states that police officers have a hard time controlling guns, and I would like to respond by saying that it is the police officer's job to control criminals. Just because you ban ownership of guns held by the average person does not mean that gang gunfights, drug dealer gunfights and other types of shooting that already use stolen guns are going to stop. In my opponents third argument they state that "having handguns is only making it harder for people to defend themselves from danger." I have two responses to this. First I would like to once again bring up my evidence of 2.5 million crimes are stopped using gun defense each year. Secondly I would like to say that have you ever heard the term "don't bring a knife to a gun fight."? I think that it is common knowledge that shooting a gun at someone will be able to stop them before they manage to get so close they can stab you. Overall my opponents arguments have been refuted, and though he did put up some good points I urge the voter to vote for the con, the side in opposition to the resolution: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. If any one wants evidence just comment or reply to my post. I did not make a bibliography this time around because of the low amount of citing I did but I need to let you know that if you want evidence I need to provide you with a credible source(s).