the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

Greetings debate.org community! This will be my first debate and I am excited to be a part of this community and argue against the statement, "The USA should ban most guns and confiscate them." I would like to thank my opponent, dairygirl4u2c, which I will now refer to as con throughout this debate for giving me the opportunity to debate this issue. Let's have a good debate and I hope this debate will provide a great learning experience and a new perspective for the both of us and everybody who is involved.Since con did not specify the conditions for each round for this debate, I will attack con's premise in the fact that it does not support her conclusion in banning most guns and confiscating them in the USA as well as addressing the claims that con has made. I will also provide some premises of my own in support of not banning guns and I look forward to con's rebuttal to my premises with relevant evidence. I will provide definitions from the Oxford Dictionaries throughout the debate when it is relevant unless con rather have my definitions from another source. Con also bought up the confiscation of guns in Austalia, which I will also address, but I will not focus my argument on since I feel the banning of guns in Australia is not relevant to the banning of guns in the USA. When I say the banning of guns in the USA, please make the distinction that I am in no way saying that there should not be any regulations on guns, but instead, the removal of guns in the USA. I will not go over my beliefs in what regulations are necessary, but instead, I might use the regulations imposed and its effect as evidence."The USA should ban most guns and confiscate them," which I shall now refer to as the conclusion in this debate was unclear to me so I will address what I thought before accepting this debate and con's claim of "most guns". Currently, most guns are already banned. In 1994, the United States passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 [1]. This federal law prohibits the manufacture and use of a list of semi-automatic weapons by civilian, ranging from any semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles. Although this federal law did not ban all guns that are currently available today, my assumption of con's statement of "most guns" will mean the current guns in existence today.Con made the claim, "a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun." I do agree that a gun can equate to a danger to yourself and those around you, which I will discuss as a risk. A risk is "a situation involving exposure to danger." Although guns provide a risk of dangers such as homicides and suicides, it is not sufficient to the conclusion, nor is it necessary for homicides and suicides. When I make the claim of a risk, I shall equate this risk to the health risk of having the object in question in a close proximity since a health risk at worst is death. My argument will be if the object in question is a risk, then it should not have the merits of being banned, which I will remind that it is by no means not the same as having no regulations on it. According to con's references, the articles state that there is a risk in the involvement of a gun in a home. To me, this is indeed common sense and I agree with this statement since the home with no guns will have a lower risk of gun homicide or suicide since no guns exist in that home, but the risk is not eliminated completely. There is a risk in bacon consumption, which can lead to a high risk of heart disease and stroke [2]. This is indeed the leading cause of death in the United States [3]. If I were to not eat bacon, then I can lower my risk of heart disease and stroke, but that still does not deter me the possibility of still having heart disease and a stroke since it can be a number of factors that can contribute to it; diet, exercise, smoking, etc. I digress, but this can be similar to having guns in home leading to a higher risk of death. There are a number of issues that can lead to death with guns such as mental health, social inequality, and gun safety knowledge. What I wanted to point out is that risk should not be the only factor in banning something and is not sufficient for the banning.I want to argue against the perspective of having more guns would lead to a higher risk of homicide rate. This will go hand in hand with con's claim, "more guns means more overall homicide." For this next point, my attention will be focused in just the states in the United States since it can be seen that in other countries with less guns than the United States, there is still a very high homicide rate from guns; Honduras, El Salvador, etc. The contributing factors can include many things such as cultural beliefs, governmental control, and economic background. Every country has its own sets of problems to deal with differently and the same solution might not work. This will touch a little bit on the banning in Australia is not at all relevant to the potential banning in the United States. This is a quote from Prime Minister Howard of Australia, "Our challenges were different from America's. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn't as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America's over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms." [4]Now, back to my point on having more guns would lead to a higher risk of homicide rate in the United States. I will focus on the ownership of guns and the homicide rate rather than the regulations on guns to homicide rate since each state has different laws and some states are much stricter than others. Consider this chart [5]:State / Gun Ownership / Gun Murders (per 100,000)WY / 59.7% / 0.9AK / 57.8% / 2.7MT / 57.7% / 1.2SD / 56.6% / 1.0WV / 55.4% / 1.5D.C. / 3.6% / 16.5LA / 44.1% / 7.7MO / 41.7% / 5.4SC / 21.3% / 5.1MI / 42.3% / 4.5This chart was taken from Wikipedia, based on the U.S. Census Bureau. You are free to reject any sources from Wikipedia. The first five state has the highest gun ownership while the next five states has the highest homicide rate from guns. From the chart, it is evident that there is no correlation between a high gun ownership to homicide rate. Sadly, there are still risks from having guns, but not a higher risk of having more guns.If possible, I would like con to address the issue of overturning the United States' Second Amendment in the Constitution and to find a common ground on making it acceptable to ban guns, yet still preserve the civil freedoms of the right to bear arms. I find this relevant as a premise to the conclusion unless con is able to counter on why it isn't. I have included a further reading list for those that would like to learn and be more aware about this controversial issue.[1] http://www.gpo.gov...[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[3] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...[4] http://thefederalist.com...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org... Further reading:[6] http://www.gunfacts.info...[7] http://www.gunpolicy.org...[8] http://www.snopes.com...