Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States

I would like to begin this round by stating my opponent has NOT defined his definitions, so thus he, by default, agrees with the definitions I have provided. 1) Would I shoot him at first? Definitely not, but that's not what I've stated. I stated that it is right to kill the attacker if your life is put in immediate danger. Obviously, I would warn the intruder (telling him to freeze, get on the ground, ect), and if he attacks with a firearm or lethal object, I would have to kill him; for wounding an attacker is most of the time punishable in court. Also, to the opponent, guns exist, you can't control that. One cannot simply just travel back in time and prevent the creation of firearms, they are here. Also, you are STRAYING off-topic. This debate isn't over gun legality in general, it's on the legality of handguns. 2) My opponent's comparison to the society of the Native Americans in the 17th century is very unrealistic. They were a single-cultured society, which is not comparable to the society of the USA. The USA, of which, is a society of numerous cultures, ethnics and languages. Thus, I can safely state that the low crime rate of the Native Americans was primarily based on their strict-disciplinary lifestyle and single-cultured society. The presence of weaponry would have no effect, due to that it is common knowledge that every male of the numerous Native American tribes were armed with hunting knives, spears, bows & arrows, blunt weapons and numerous other forms of weaponry. My opponent's Native American example is irrelevant. "Without guns there would be no gun deaths" - My Opponent My opponent has bluntly made a false statement, due to that firearms can be created by the simplest of engineers that we call gunsmiths. One could buy a 5 & 1/2 millimeter pipe and make their own ammunition (obviously, an ammunition type of reasonable velocity), and thus create what we call "zip gun. " This weapon can be used to kill a human being quite effectively. Thus, I have rendered my opponent's statement invalid. 3) The Supreme Court of America interprets the United States Constitution, so yes, they are indeed a good source. Racism is a political ideology (not that I support it, I am against racism) and is allowed in the political world, but it is often frowned upon. Ronald Reagan's address to the Civil Rights movement was politically unbiased, and ethically right, for one has the right to regulate their business/service to their heart's content, regardless of others' opposition. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire Also, my opponent continues to label me as "Ronald Reagen", but I am not such person. My name is Joseph Aaron Roy. My opponent has failed to refute any of my contentions, but instead has only made spiteful insults and even resulted to name calling (the constant "Ronald McReagan" remarks are becoming quite fruitless. ) To reiterate, my opponent has done nothing but insult, use false scenarios and comparisons, and the blunt use of political bias which is widely frowned upon in the debating world, for debating requires one to effectively debate for both pro and con cases.