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

Now is the round for refutations so I will begin:Contention #1 - Moral Thing To Do and FrameworkHowever, morality is subjective. You may consider this to be the correct and moral thing to do while others may consider a gun ban incorrect and unnecessary. The morality depends on the people since it is not at all objective. We create our moral grounds. That leads me to the fact that most people actually consider it immoral and incorrect to ban private ownership of guns.In addition, there are rules of things you can do with a firearm. We should not be taking away these rights from the law abiding citizens of the USA.The current laws protect us well and ensure morality and therefore we do not need a gun ban.[1] Nearly three weeksafter the latest mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people, 52% of Americans now oppose stricter gun control laws, 6 percentage points more than the 46% of Americans who support such laws. That's a wider gap than in June when CNN last surveyed Americans on gun control, finding that the public was equally split at 49% on the issue.Contention #2- Prevent DeathSubpoint A- SuicideIn this point, my opponent mentions how a gun ban will help prevent suicide. However, there are 2 things that contradict that fact. Is it really good to prevent suicide? People do have the right to death and we can not take that right away from them. It is immoral to take away the control of people over their own lives.The only way to ensure fairness is to give people control over their lives. In addition, a gun ban will NEVER prevent suicide. It is common knowledge about what happen to the Brits.The Brits banned guns. Now, the Brits stab each other to death. I dont see this to be an improvement over the previous situation and that shows how ineffective gun bans are.Subpoint B- Accidental HomicidesIt happens, I agree. But there is a very simple solution.We can NOT outright ban guns so instead, we can prevent accidental homicides. That will be done by following the opposition plan. Instead of issuing a gun ban, we can just teach people and educate on the proper use of guns. We can make sure that gun owners know how to preent accidental homicides and make a gun home safe instead of dangerous. My opponent refutes my first contention by saying that I contradict myself. However, he is the one who failed to comprehend what I was saying. I am saying that a BAN will cause the black market. The shadow markets are only caused when the majority is not able to obtain something. However, the majority will be able to obtain a gun and there would be no point to create the black market.The counter plan will take guns from criminal hands and only give them to those who will be able to use them properly. My opponent refutes my second contention by saying that in California, regulations failed. However, in California, a BAN failed. The strict laws would have surely worked. He refutes my fourth contention by saying that the constitution doesnt justify anything. However, this contention was about how it is in there for a reason and the reason was stated.My opponent goes on to state how there are drones now and guns cant do anything.However, drones are still not as popular and therefore, we can use the guns to defend ourselves.Thank you, vote con.[1]http://www.cnn.com...