the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

Going into this debate, I was hoping to have an actual debate with pro, but pro showed no evidence to support her premise leading to the banning of guns. In the last round, pro simply posted a link showing the views and critique of Eric Garland. I did not come into this debate to debate Eric Garland. I came in here to debate pro and show that pro's premises are not sufficient to the conclusion.One of pro's premise is using the Oxford link that did the study of gun ownership in homes leading to a higher risk of homicides and suicide. I accepted that indeed this risk can lead to death, but argued that it should not be a premise in banning guns. Everything will have risk and I used the example of the risk of eating bacon. Although there is risk, the banning of eating bacon would be considered ridiculous. Pro then compares my claims as comparing bacon to guns, which I did not. I used the comparison of risk.My next main point is showing that there is no correlation with more guns and higher homicide rates in the United States. I wanted to based my argument on strictly what happened in the United States and not compare it to other nations since the United States is different from other nations in many ways. Does other nations have a civil right to own guns? No. Do they have a strong gun lobby? No. Do other nations have the same cultural experience as the United States? No. These were my considerations and concerns when comparing the United States to other nations. It is just plain different and ridiculous to compare two different nations although there might be some similarities. That is why I avoided comparing what works in the United States and what works in other nations. This also addresses pro's views of the banning in Australia, which I provided evidence for, but pro made no effort in recognizing this point at all.I have made many other arguments against pro such as finding a common ground with the civil freedom of an individual as expressed in the United States' Second Amendment. Pro claims we have to get rid of it, which I saw as an infringement on the rights of other. I see this as not having common grounds since pro refuses to accept that this should be a right with no evidence.Pro also fails to have any evidence on the correlation of having more guns and higher homicide rates in the United States. Rather, pro just attacked my premise on this point. Pro attempted to attack my Harvard study with a link that she has posted. I only used the relevant evidence in the study to support my premise that once again, there is no correlation with more guns and higher homicide rates in just strictly looking at the United States. I have accepted in round 2 that the study does use international countries in the paper, but did not use that data as I find it irrelevant to my premise because I only wanted to strictly look at what has happened in the United States. In pro's last link, Mr. Garland focus was mostly comparing different nations, which I had rejected in finding relevant in banning guns in the United States.In conclusion, I did not find pro's premises strongly supporting the conclusion of banning and confiscating most guns in the United States. Pro focus on this debate was to attack my premises and in exchange, not support her premises, which I criticized. How can you have a conclusion if your premises does not follow?