A complete gun ban in the US

R1) Second AmendmentMy adversary is bringing up constitutionality in question, and defines it a certain way. He does not understand the impact of this argument. What the actually constitution is defined as and what people define it as are two different things. In fact two supreme court rulings have found it lawful and constitutions to posses firearms and not weapons ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) if you review that case the supreme court actually struct down firearm control regulations and ruled it as unconstitutional. So yes the constitution does give us the right to bear arms, and arms are defined as firearms and that is shown by that supreme court ruling. Again that is not the key argument. The argument is that people will perceive it as their right no matter what occurs. It does not even matter what is actually ruled, because people think they have the right to own guns. Issuing a mandatory ban or buy back would literally start the next civil war. All of america loves gun, and people will stand and fight if you try and remove those guns. This even extends into property rights in ways. If you try and take the property of a person in which they can lawfully posses and are promised the right to possess or which they think they have the right to possess, people will fight back. That is a fact.(a) It is ruled by the supreme court that we have the right to bear arms, via those two cases(b) Even if that was not the case the point would still stand. People would perceive it as their sight and rebel against it leaving a net negative impact. R2) RegressionThis is about impact mitigation, if you ban guns it reduces harm. It really does not. If you ban guns entirely, it opens up a black market for them. So the crimes that occur already will keep occurring, but now you have unarmed your citizens. People will still get guns through illegal avenues, still cause crimes but not it's even harder for people to defend themselves. You are literally telling them to take a knife to a gun fight. Not only that people will find ways to harm people in bad ways, they will go to chemicals or bombs. If someone wants to harm people they will find ways to harm people. So even if the ban hypothetically had no black market effect, people will just fall back to other things to cause mass harm with. this is not the case though, criminals will still have the guns after the bans and the citizens wont. The black market effect is a very real thingR3) Guns Reduce CrimeIf you examine the Austrian or american buy backs you will see a similar pattern. If you ban guns, crime increases. That is because of the black market effect. People will commit crimes, murders, etc without fear because you have unarmed your people. You can cleary see this in the Australia buy back because robberies and crime drastically increased as soon as the ban was imposed. ( http://www.loc.gov... ). Pros entire contention about it stopping crime is false. It does not stop crime, it increases it and by a large scale. Guns for all practical purposes decrease crime because they act as a deterrent ( http://www.loc.gov... ). If you actually examine the Australia buy back you can see no effect or no effect at all regarding it's impacts on murders, and a huge spike in robbers , and other types of crimes right after it. The same remains true with US buy backs. You see the same pattern. If you take away guns crime always increases despite what my adversary says. That is a fact when you examine any previous ban. Dropped ) More Regulation. Including high capacity bans etc. Pistols are a primary cause in deaths. My adversary is trying to build a case for mitigating harm, reducing the magazine size of pistols allows that to happen while giving people the right to bear arms and defend themselves reasonably.