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

Since round 3 is a rebuttal round, I will first start by refuting my opponent's points and then I will continue on to weigh this debate. My opponent raised the question, "is it then unlawful to ban access to nuclear weapons or rocket launchers?" Let us then look to the second amendment. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms in order that citizen can orchestrate a well regulated militia. By definition, the ultimate aim of an arms, then is for self-defense. There has never been a time, nor will there ever be, in which a private owner of a nuclear bomb or missile, was able to successfully defend him or herself from an intruder in the United States. This really shows in the end the lack of experience my opponent has. In fact, if anything it hurts the owner and those around him, therefore this argument has nothing to do with the specific resolution. Secondly, my plan is just as simple as my opponent, but more effective. With our strict background checks, we make sure that we thoroughly search every purchaser's personal, crime , and medical record. If they have a blemish on their crime record, or have had an experience of mental illness, then the gun will be denied to them. I would also like to add that my opponent in contrary me, had completely failed to mention how he will carry out his propositional plan under the standards of the resolution. In plain response to my opponent's third refutation. I have not in fact ignored your argument, I have refuted it as you can see in my first argument round. I do agree that handguns kill, but I have credible evidence pointing to 20 nations that did what the affirmative here is proposing to do and ended up with a higher death rate. If anything my opponent failed to refute my response to his argument which, in the debate world, means he has conceded to the refutation and agreed with me that this argument is wrong. If my opponent wants to talk about cops, where were the cops at the sandy hook shooting. Where were they at the Oregon shooting, at the planned parenthood shooting, at the paris shootings. Self defense is a crucial element for household all over the US, and my opponent cannot deny it. In the end I really want to say, that it is informal, if not rude that my opponent after realizing he will lose this debate, is attempting to accuse me of cheating. My opponent is undeserving of winning this debate, I mean he's had only one statistic which was easily refuted, and his only source was the disease control center. In response to his fifth point, my opponent is ignorant to the fact that the 20 or 10% of criminals who get guns illegally will be reluctant to use it if they know their victim has the chance of having one. But then again we won't have armed criminals because they will no longer have access to guns. Now, to weigh this debate. Voters, as you can see from these 3 short rounds, my opponent has proved that firstly his one statistic is prone to error, his source is only one, and his plan is vague and general. I have proven to you that his plan is contradictory to the reason for doing it, that he will be ridding citizens of self-defense, and will be defying the document on which this beloved nation was founded, the constitution. I have but one more thing to say for my opponent. If you do enforce the gun ban, you will be making every gun in that black market, in the hands of the criminals, all across the U.S ultimately pointed, at you. Thank you.