Banning all firearms in the US would be detrimental to society

Thanks, Pro.I'll use this round for rebuttals.I would like to start off by clarifying that my comparison of USA's homicide rates to other countries' homicide rates was not meant to be taken as evidence in and of itself; I am well-aware of the problems with cross-sectional evidence. I only brought it up as support for my point that murderers do *not* simply switch to other weapons when guns aren't available, thus implying that the 67% statistic alone serves as a good reason to vote Con.Re: Detroit vs. Plano1. A comparison of just two cities is not *nearly* large enough of a sample size to extrapolate the results to the rest of the nation. Last round I cited a study which analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide rates across ALL 50 states, over a 10 YEAR period. That is a far, far more comprehensive evaluation of the effect of gun ownership on homicide rates, and thus its results should be weighed more than the results of Con's paltry two-city comparison.2. High rates of gun ownership are not the only things which affect homicide rates; in fact, their impact is dwarfed by factors such as arrest rates (i.e. the efficacy of the local police force) and poverty levels, which Pro seems to have completely ignored. Plano is quite literally one of America's richest cities, with a median household income of $79,234 and a miniscule poverty rate of just 4.3% [1][2]. Compare that to Detroit, with a median income of $25,193 and a poverty rate of 26.1% [3][4]. Not only that, but whereas Plano has a widely-acclaimed police force known around the nation for its efficiency [1], Detroit has a whopping 36% of its murders go unsolved, and therefore unpunished [5]. With such enormous disparities in far more important crime-causing factors, it is incredibly unfair to blame the difference in homicide rates on stricter gun control laws.3. The so-called "strict gun control laws" which Pro cites are actually completely ineffectual, so it is to be expected that they would not succeed in mitigating Detroit's astronomical homicide rates. The main reason for this inefficacy is that none of the said regulations apply to private gun sales -- e.g. gun shows, online markets, straw-man purchases, etc. So regardless of restrictions on buying guns, criminals can still very easily acquire guns due to the enormous loopholes in American gun control laws [6]. Moreover, laws on a local level are inherently flawed because there are virtually no barriers on simply purchasing guns outside of the locality and bringing them home... It is wholly unsurprising that gun control laws fail to work. Of course, one may ask, if gun control laws don't work, then why should we expect a gun ban to? A total gun ban *would* work, because it would stop firearms manufacturers from producing new guns and remove the majority of guns already in circulation (via a buyback), thus virtually eliminating the supply of firearms throughout the entire country. This would mitigate the threat of criminals conveniently acquiring guns through domestic private dealings. It would also be unfeasible for anyone to obtain guns from outside the country because both of our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico, have very few legal gun manufacturers of their own -- currently, Mexico's criminals get the vast majority of their guns from the US [7]. The point is, that it would be enormously more difficult and expensive to obtain guns illegally than it is in the status quo, thereby basically nullifying the chance that criminally-inclined people will be able to get their hands on firearms.Re: Self-DefensePro's source is simply wrong about the number of defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year. He cites a random pro-gun blog that makes a reference to researcher Gary Kleck's survey, reporting about 2.5 million DGUs annually. However, this validity of Kleck's results has more or less been destroyed. It suffers from numerous problems which are endemic to telephone surveys, such as false positive bias and small sampling size. The National Crime Victimization Survey, which included controls to account for these flaws, reported the annual DGU number to be about 108,000 [8]. Compare that to the number of times guns are used in violent crimes -- 467,000 [9]. It is evident that the benefits of widespread gun ownership do not come even *close* to outweighing the harms.== Conclusion ==Pro's comparison of Plano to Detroit proves absolutely nothing due to the enormous fallacies associated with it. His defensive gun use argument actually works against him, as far more reliable sources show that guns are used in violent crime over 4 times more often than they are used for self-defense. On the other hand, I have provided solid reasoning and a broad assortment of academic studies to demonstrate that high rates of gun ownership *do* lead to increased homicide rates, and have further elaborated in this round on the efficacy of gun bans in reducing gun ownership for "law-abiding citizens" and "criminals" alike. The resolution is negated.SOURCES[1] http://www.nbcnews.com...[2] http://www.city-data.com...[3] http://www.mlive.com...[4] http://www.city-data.com...[5] http://www.npr.org...[6] http://www.msnbc.com...[7] http://www.theatlantic.com...[8] https://www.ncjrs.gov... (pg.10)[9] http://www.nij.gov...