Should all Guns be banned

I want to say I really respect that Con put effort into this debate. I thought he would forfeit but he has continued to argue like a true debater. For that reason, I won't argue very harshly this round as I want con to grow as a debater in future debates. "People getting injured in shootings is bad but if no one is killed it's not a mass shooting. "What con is talking about is a mass killing. A mass shooting, Literally by its name, Indicates a shooting of more than one person - "A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple participants of firearms-related violence" - https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Mass_shooting"You forgot to mention one little thing when Australia banned guns almost nobody in the country owned guns"The US has a higher household to gun ownership ratio yes, But Australia's gun ownership was not nothing. It was roughly 1/6 households (https://www. Gunpolicy. Org/firearms/region/australia) I regret to say this but the burden of proof is on Con. It is always on the creator of the debate unless con states otherwise. Con negates the idea of banning all firearms, But fails to provide proof that banning all firearms in the US would cause havoc. Con relies heavily on the logic that because people are not willing, That the ban wouldn't work. Con doesn't recognise that we don't know what will happen, Because gun banning has never been properly implemented in the US. Con makes a fatal mistake:Banning guns would cause violence =/= banning guns won't work. The =/= sign means it does not equal to. Perhaps it will be difficult and challenging to implement such strict gun laws, But that doesn't mean in the long run that it won't work. ""Australia is more similar to the US than Switzerland is. " Yes I never said it was all I said was that it's gun laws would be the better option rather then taking them away by force"Con completely misses my point. I said Switzerland's gun laws work BECAUSE it's almost a utopian country. And Con, Your proposed gun laws are ALREADY being implemented. Don't you know that the US already does background checks on its gun owners? Con goes on to talk about freedom and that taking guns away takes away freedom. This makes no sense. I'm not allowed to own a bazooka because holy **** that would be dangerous. So are firearms. I don't go around the street being angry that the government disallows me to have bazookas. I am not strawmanning here, I am using a valid analogy. Freedom is inherently limited in a constructed society. "If we ban guns people will just say oh Knifes are bad to and then they would ban all knifes and so on until no one had any weapons except for the government. "This is what's called in debating, a slippery slope fallacy. It is where an argument goes on and on with causal links that have no or not enough evidence to back them up. As you can imagine, It's a slippery slope. Who would say knives are bad and therefore we'd have to ban knives? Knives are important for cooking food, You have no basis for that argument. " what we need is more background checks. Freedom is the most precious thing of all and if we let them take away some of our freedom they can't take away all of our freedom"Nobody said anything about taking away ALL freedom. Just because the government restricts you a little bit, Doesn't mean you aren't free. You're acting like guns are phones. Like they are a NECESSITY. I rarely feel the need to capslock my sentences but this time I will because I respect you as a debater. I want to change your mind too. Look, If the government takes away your phone. THAT'S taking your freedom away. What do you need a gun for other than shooting birds? And are people so paranoid that they think someone is always going to break into their homes and steal their stuff? Listen, If something like that happens, You're pretty arrogant if you think you're quick enough to find your gun and shoot him/her. That person knows you have a gun, He'll come in with a bulletproof vest, You're caked. I can provide multiple other arguments as to why Con lost this debate. Like his conduct, Like the way he gave up some of my arguments, Or the other numerous fallacies he's committed. But I'll just leave it there. I rest my case. (btw, Personally, I am undecided on the topic, I am playing devil's advocate? I guess).