The Ultimate Goal of the Gun Control Lobby is to Ban and Confiscate All Guns

Well, it seems from a first look that you're being distracted from the argument.Let's start by countering the videos.The first one, with Ben Shapiro, very much helps my argument, rather than yours.Piers makes it clear that a gun ban is a ridiculous proposal. Nowhere does he say he wants to take away all the guns. He says that control is a necessary measure, and that it wouldn't work in America.The second video, with Colin Noir, also provides insufficient evidence.It says that control is something that everyone is moving for. Although he points out the slippery slope that could lead to a total ban, he doesn't state that we need to be wary of the government trying to take control. This is because the idea of a total ban would never work.This is supported by the fourth video. "More guns equals less violence" indeed. The video, if anything, supports my argument, by showing that banning guns is preposterous, and totally defeat the purpose of organizations like the Brady Campaign, which is to prevent gun violence.The third video, very interestingly, does provide some evidence for that argument. However, what it fails to show is that the ultimate plan is to eliminate guns entirely. True, some people backing the campaign do support a total ban, but ultimately the vast majority of the supporters are simply moving towards some form of control that will lower the amount of gun violence.In other words, the goal is not to ban guns. That would be nice, but unfeasible. In essence, they work to prevent gun violence, which can be achieved by certain measures of control, but not necessarily a ban.The article by the Atlantic that you put forth screams of bias, just like the third video. It manipulates you into thinking one thing means the next. The fact that the government wants control does NOT mean that they want a ban. Hell, you Americans made the mistake of introducing the second amendment in the first place. Guns here in Ontario, Canada are not banned, but simply need to be registered. Unregistered guns here are illegal, but people have them anyways. And just like in America, gun violence would skyrocket if they were banned outright. Seeing as that kind of legislation is working for Canadians, it would also work for Americans once people realize that the government isn't going to take away your guns.Now, in one of the videos (I can't remember which) There is someone claiming that in a personal conversation with Obama that Mr. President himself doesn't believe Americans should own guns. Once again, this does not mean that he will ban them! In fact, in another video he explicitly states in a public speech that he doesn't want to pass the legislation to take them away.Your Brady Campaign timeline is very good reading, but no where in the ENTIRE HISTORY is there mentioned any push for a total ban. This is because their goal is to reduce the levels of violence, which can be achieved simply through control, not a ban."Although guns can and have been used successfully in self-defense in the home, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense."How does this encourage a complete ban? Once again, it only reinforces that they are only pushing for control. Like you said yourself, it fails to reconsider (sic) correlation and cause. If control measures like effective background checks or registration were introduced, there would be a dramatic reduction of gun-related violence and suicides.Finally, to address the Assault Weapons Ban and the Saturday Night Specials: they were revoked for a reason! Although they weren't very specific with what type of guns they wanted to be banned, the only point of those bans was to make sure Americans were safer, not because they didn't want them to lose their guns. When people saw that it was only increasing the amounts of gun violence, it was undone. This shows that safety is what the Gun Control Lobby is all about, not banning guns outright.If they wanted to ban guns, they would not have allowed that kind of thing to happen. And therefore, my argument stands._______________________________________________________Props to you for making a good argument, though. ;)