The U.S should ban guns

=Rebutalls=See, the problem that both me and my opponent made is that I'm arguing for the most common definition of "gun", while my opponent is arguing for something else. Since, we both failed to reiliterate, Hopefully, voters will choose my definition of gun. If we were arguing for my definition, it's safe to say Pro has conceded the round.Gun: a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.However, just for fun, I'll argue against this Kritik that my opponent has put forth.Pro challenged my resolution with Kritiks which I will address below. By doing so, the BoP (Burden of Proof) falls on Pro to justify that her Kritik definitely negates my resolution. It is sufficient for me to simply bring sufficient doubt to her claim to be awarded the win.Pro argues that we should follow Moti Mizrahi's framework about moral obligation, but why should we? Pro doesn't give us any good reasons to follow his idea, and simply says we should. Since the BOP is now effectively on Pro, she needs to prove that Moti Mzrahi's idea is something we should follow.=My case=The basis on this topic is based on a Utilitarian Principle. If bannings guns were to to be implemented, it should benefit most of society. Pro is indicating that the prohibition of guns would reduce patriarchy, but this ultimately backfires against her. Pro forgets that the government of the United States is mainly dominated by males. When you give the government the authority to force somebody to do something with their body, it is more gives the male dominated government more power, therefore it's more patriarchy. Also worth noting, is that society is female-dominated in the U.S. Pro's idea of banning guns would actually increase patriarchy, thus making it undesirable.Pro also forgets that a gun is simply a tool. A tool is could be something linked to partiachy, but overall it's up to the people who use that tool who decide what they want to do with it. Pro is suggesting that we deny people the choice to do what they want with her bodies, which results in more patriarchy. By treating every individual who has a gun as a mindless syncophant of the patriarchy, and then forcibly removing the perceived link between them and that patriarchy, Pro is essentially supporting mass rape of the populace, violating their right to ownership and even destroying any concept of independent thought. This patriarchy as Pro said before, which would mean it does not help the majority of society, since it violates the freedom of choice, and it creates the oppurtunity for a more male-dominated society. In a country such as America, we take our liberty very seriously, and banning guns will make alot of Americans mad. This could lead to violent protests by those who's guns have been taken away from them. Another point I'd like to make is that banning guns could be a slippery slope to other things the government want to ban. It's dangerous to allow government take hold of people's personal lives.Overall, Pro fails to show that banning guns would result in a decrease of patriarchy, because the very act of government overreach is patrarchy. Pro's argument is a psychological one, but she forgets that psychological effects are very difficult to determine because people will always be dramatically different, and trying to get an accurate assessment of how peoples' minds will change as a result of the removal of a single tool from society is very difficult. So, I have dismantled Pro's case by showing that overreaching government will result in more patriarchy, thus the argument is negated.