I affirm the resolution resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Definitions for this debate:

Definition 1: Handgun refers to a firearm designed to be operated with one hands. They vary in size. At one
extreme are match-box size handguns that weigh but a few ounces. On the other extreme are handguns that weigh over four pounds and have
considerable bulk.

Definition 2: Ought is a moral obligation

Definition 3: Banned is being officially and legally prohibited.

My value is: Morality

Morality is defined as the rightness and wrongness of an action, we access morality through the
standard

My standard is: Maximizing Util

Maximizing protection of life is the only way to respect the equal worth of persons.
Rakowski 03,
On one side, it presses toward the consequentialist view that individual's

status as moral equals requires that the

number of people kept alive be maximized. Only in this way, the thought runs, can we give due weight
to the fundamental equality of persons; to allow more deaths when we can ensure fewer is to treat
some people as less valuable than others. Further, killing some to save others, or letting some die for that purpose, does not
entail that those who are killed or left to their fate are being used merely as means to the well-being of others, as would be true if they were slain
or left to drown merely to please people who would live anyway. They do, of course, in some cases serve as means. But they do not act merely as
means. Those who die are no less ends than those who live. It

is because they are also no more ends than others whose

lives are in the balance that an impartial decision-maker must choose to save the more numerous group , even if
she must kill to do so.

Happiness is the ultimate end to every action.

Kay 07,
It results from the preceding considerations, that there is in reality nothing desired except happiness. Whatever is desired
otherwise than as a means to some end beyond itself, and ultimately to happiness, is desired as itself a part of happiness, and is not desired for
itself until it has become so. Those

who desire virtue for its own sake, desire it either because the
consciousness of it is a pleasure, or because the consciousness of being without it is a pain , or for both
reasons united; as in truth the pleasure and pain seldom exist separately, but almost always together, the same person feeling pleasure in the
degree of virtue attained, and pain in not having attained more. If one of these gave him no pleasure, and the other no pain, he would not love or
desire virtue, or would desire it only for the other benefits which it might produce to himself or to persons whom he cared for. We have now, then,
an answer to the question, of what sort of proof the principle of utility is susceptible. If the opinion which I have now stated is psychologically

human nature is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not either a part of happiness or a
means of happiness, we can have no other proof, and we require no other, that these are the only things
desirable. If so, happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to
true- if

judge of all human conduct; from whence it necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality,
since a part is included in the whole.

Everything devolves into Util no matter what. My standard will always supersede theirs because in
the end, they will always be trying to maximize happiness,

Contention One: Guns promote violence.

A. Gun ownership is associated with a culture of gun violence.
Shootings are an expression of unchecked violence
Giroux 11 [Henry A. Giroux, who currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and
Cultural Studies Department]
Nine people were killed and seven wounded recently in a mass shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon. Such shootings are
more than another tragic expression of unchecked violence in the [U.S]; they are

symptomatic of a society engulfed in fear,

militarism, a survival-of-the-fittest ethos and a growing disdain for human life. This shooting] is not an isolated incident. Over
270 mass shootings have taken place in the United States this year alone [2015], proving the political and social conditions
that underlie such violence are not being addressed. The [U.S], calls for liberal, Band-Aid reforms do not
work in the face of the carnage taking place. "The United States sees an average of 92 gun deaths per day - and more
preschoolers are shot dead each year than police officers are killed in the line of duty." Mass violence in the [U.S] has to be understood within a
larger construction of the totality of the forces that produce it. Focusing merely on the more dramatic shootings misses the extent of the needless
violence and murders that are taking place daily.

Impact: This means that only a handgun ban will work in solving for violence and not simple
reforms

B. The Weapons Effect

Weapons create aggression that leads to violence
Anderson 08 [Craig A. Anderson, Arlin J. Benjamin, Jr., and Bruce D. Bartholow on Does the gun pull the trigger]
In 1967, Berkowitz and LePage demonstrated that the

presence of weapons produced more retaliative aggression

against an antagonist than the presence of badminton rackets. These results, led to debate about the validity of the
effect. But now, [its] clear [the Effect] is real. It has been observed, with weapon pictures as well as real
weapons, in field settings [and] psychological laboratory. Early concerns that the weapons effect might be an artifact of
participants suspicion or experimenter demand have been met by studies revealing the opposite: The weapons effect occurs only when
participants are not suspicious or under heavy experimenter demand. It is clear the
weapon, can make

presence of a weapon, or even a picture of a

people behave more aggressively. In essence, the gun [pulls] the trigger.

Impact: In a society such as where we have created a gun culture where its citizens associate gun
ownership with violence, promoting violence itself. It seems evident that banning handguns would
be the decision for achieving util, supporting this with the fact that the presence of weapons serves

as a catalyst for aggression, disproving the statement that any gun owner can be safe and
responsible.

Contention Two: Availability of guns in the U.S

Easily Available Handguns weaken safety.
Berger 08 [Sarah Berger, Graduate of the University of Missouri, in 2015 on IBTimes]
Hours before a mass shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, President Barack Obama said that his biggest frustration has been his inability to pass
stricter gun laws. "If you ask me where [Im] most frustrated, it is the fact that the [U.S.A] is the one advanced nation on Earth in which we do
not have sufficient, common-sense, gun safety laws," Obama said,"Even in the face of repeated mass killings."Compared to other nations, the

the U.S. accounts for less than 5 percent of the worlds population, it accounts for 35 to 50
percent of the worlds civilian-owned guns. Overall, the U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate in
the world, with 270 million civilian guns, the Washington Post reported. The U.S.[and] also has the highest
homicide-by-firearm rate among the worlds most developed nations. Roughly[with] 67.5 percent of homicides in the
U.S. are committed using guns, accounting for 9,960 total homicides by guns. In India, only 7.6 percent of homicides are committed
[U.S] has relaxed gun laws,. Although

with guns.

Impact: The U.S has the most availability of handguns in the world, availability directly correlates
with the number of homicides in the U.S.

Concealed handguns dont work, data shows an increase in crime

Donohue 15 [John donohue, who has been the professor of law at both Stanford University and Yale Law school]
For years, the NRA mantra has been that allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns would
reduce crime as they fought off or scared off the criminals. Some early studies purported to show that so-called right to carry
laws (RTC) did just that, but a 2004 report from the National Research Council refuted that claim (saying it was not supported by "the scientific
evidence"), while remaining uncertain about what the true impact of RTC laws was. Ten years of additional data have allowed new research to
get a better fix on this question, which is important since the NRA is pushing for a Supreme Court decision that would allow RTC as a matter of
constitutional law.

The new research on this issue from my research team at Stanford University has given the most
that RTC laws are associated with significant increases in violent crime, particularly
for aggravated assault. Looking at Uniform Crime Reports data from 1979-2012, on average, the 33 states that adopted RTC laws over
this period experienced violent crime rates that are 4%-19% higher after 10 years than if they had
not adopted these laws.
compelling evidence to date

Impact: This shows how the availability of guns with the right to carry laws leads lives lost, as they
have been proven to be associated with a majority of homicides in the country as well as an increase
in crime. Banning handguns should be the right decision towards maximizing util