Gun ban legislation and the no fly list

I would like to make my rebuttal of each of your points in separate paragraphs for simplicity. I would also note that I understand logical fallacies and I do not attack my opponent personally but I attack his points harshly if need be. I just want to be clear that the two do not become mixed. That is the very nature of a debate. First point rebuttal: In reality removing guns from the equation is impossible, and will only result in only government and criminals having guns. If we however, entertain your hypothetical, then yes gun crime would reduce because guns would not exist but other types of crime would skyrocket. If someone cant shoot a person to death then they will simply stab them to death. You have committed a logical fallacy in your first point. You mention countries that have more gun regulation and explain that they have less gun crime. Then you make a conclusion that crime in general does not increase if guns are removed. At first your argument was about gun crime, then you either assume all crime is gun crime or attempted to make a claim about all crime but only talking about gun crime. Your conclusion is not only wrong because it is logically incoherent, but statistically it is mistaken. These gun regulated countries you mention have seen all types of violent crime explode since major gun bans and regulations. Below I will explain these facts about gun regulated countries and areas. Canada: In 1920 before any gun regulations (yes full auto and semi auto weapons existed and people had some of these) the homicide rate in Canada was 7% of the U.S. rate. After strict gun regulations in the 1980's Canada's homicide rate was 35% of the U.S rate. In 2003 Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian provinces than in the northern U.S. states across the entire border. I would like to start a trend by saying less guns more crime. This trend will continue. Britain: From Britain's own government numbers ever since the major gun restriction of the 1990's violent crime has exponentially increased. After the gun bans, GUN crime has doubled since handguns were banned in the 90's in Britain. Britain has the highest crime rate in Europe but also has the strictest gun laws. In the early 2000's after the gun laws, U.K. street robberies increased 28%. In 2004 they had another 10% increase. Since 2000 armed robbery, assault, attempted murder, rape, and kidnapping ALL saw an increase of over 100% since the gun bans. Handguns were used in 3,685 cases in 2000 after the gun restriction compared to 2,648 before the gun restrictions. Again less guns means more crime. Australia: In the first two years on strict gun regulations criminal activity increased 20%. After the new gun laws, firearm murders were up 19% and armed robberies were up 69% as well as a 20% increase in home break ins. 15 years before the gun bans, gun related homicides dropped over 60%. Less guns means more crime. Mexico: Not much needs to be said here. Guns are banned from citizens while the drug cartel terrorizes people and the Mexican police strike fear in the people. Mexico for the most part is not a place for tourists to visit. Less guns means more crime. Southside Chicago: In this area guns are heavily restricted and it has one of the worst crime per capita rates in the world. If you want to live in place where guns are restricted by the government then go live in Chicago where 116 in 100,000 are directly affected by crime. Again less guns means more crime. Switzerland: Here almost every citizen has a gun and has heavy firepower available. They have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. They have lowest gun crime rates but yet they have the most guns. Not a single school has been massacred in Switzerland to date. Less guns means more crime United States: The united states crime and drugs org. can find no correlation with gun ownership and and gun related homicides in terms of having more guns meaning more crime. For homicides out of 100,000 people America ranks 104th on the list even though we are number one on the number of guns in the hands of citizens. The top 10 on the list have the strictest gun laws. Part two on point one: I need to inform you that these no fly lists and terror lists are done without a court order or any findings by a jury. People are placed on these lists with NO due process. That is incredibly unconstitutional. Small children are put on these lists all the time without doing a single thing. People who are convicted felons by a court should be restricted and they all ready are. America has gun restrictions enough and in some areas too much. Point two rebuttal: To think that some of the most brilliant men to ever walk the earth were stupid enough to believe that guns would not advance to what they are today is absolutely idiotic. Even in the lifetimes of the founders, guns dramatically improved. George Washington, the general of the army understood that many of his enemies had breech loading rifles that were superior to his muskets. The first rapid fire rifles came around in the 1770's and was made known to the founding fathers. The Girondoni air rife could get five shots off before someone could reload a musket to get one off. The early days of the government made no attempt to ban these or restrict them. They wanted the people to be well equipped against enemies including a tyrannical government. That is why the second amendment includes the right to have a private militia. If enemies of America are equipped heavily then the people must not be outgunned. The founders did not make the document for citizens to have muskets while the government had ar15's. Around the civil war private companies developed guns that could shred a car in seconds called a gatling gun. Some private citizens bought these and the government was not worried about it. The U.S. army up until almost 1900 issued only muskets while private citizens had repeating rifles and heavy weaponry. Note that in this time without gun regulations people did not go on rampages and kill a bunch of people in gun free zones we have today that are asking to be slaughtered. As far as big machine guns and bombs and tanks go, it costs more money than most citizens have to even get those. The people legally buying heavy weaponry DON'T commit the crimes with these guns you are afraid of. Only one crime I can think of in America where heavy weaponry was used was to steal an armored truck one time, oh and just the time where the government used tanks to slaughter 70 people in Texas in Waco without any warrant or probable cause. The Government has committed more crimes than the people have with heavy guns. In the time of the founders, they relied on PRIVATE people to have all the cannons and best guns on their ships to run the navy. The founders made no attempt in war or peace time to limit the peoples firepower. Third point rebuttal: You questioned the intelligence or foresight of the founders in point two but not here in point three. Yes! the founders designed the constitution to be changed because they knew that everything advances like guns and technology, but they also made it clear what was not to be changed. Are we going to restrict the first amendment now that we have smartphones? The rights granted to us in that document are under no circumstances to be restricted. Certainly the way to obtain weapons is monitored but we must have them. Last point: You have the temerity to assume I am not aware of nuclear weapons and what they can do. Its not feasible to buy them for yourself because they cost too much and the MAD theory would take place if a nuke was fired and we would all die and that would be the end of it anyway. The real question is that a nuke is not practical in any way and anyone wanting them for private use would have only their sanity to be questioned.