Gun bans would not be very effective in the U.S.A

Pro seems to think that the intention of the gun ban would be to reduce crime, this is false, my initial arguments were based on the intention of saving lives. I apologize for the misunderstanding, but that is what my position in this debate is based off. R1) Gun cultureThe impact of this argument is irrelevant to the resolution. We agreed that once all firearms were eliminated from the United States, the result would not achieve the objective. In this contention, Pro argues that Americans love their guns, it is a large part of our culture. He then concludes that banning guns would have a major impact on their life. The impact on America’s culture has nothing to do with saving lives through a gun ban, it is non-topical, it is a red herring.R2) Little Effect in certain statesIn this contention Pro attempts to establish a connection between Vermont’s almost nonexistent gun control and its low homicide rate. The problem with this is that there are thousands of factors that could have resulted in a low homicide rate. You need to take into resources available to law enforcement, how much law enforcement gets payed, the effectiveness of law enforcement, education level, state culture, population density, urbanization degree, religious characteristics, policies of the criminal justice system, youth concentration, modes of transportation, poverty levels, environment, organized crime, tourism, job availability and hundreds more.Pro is trying to make a link between two abstract variables to attain his desired impact. As I have shown, low crime rates could be the result of hundreds of different variables, these variables have little to no correlation.R3) Guns are used for self-defenseHere Pro argues that firearms are used in self-defense, two million times per year. Pro’s evidence comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center created by John Lott, notorious for manipulating statistics to support their view. [2] The statistic is proved blatantly false by the U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Firearms were actually the least used protective behavior at 0.8% [1].Pro has used a biased and discredited source to give blatantly false evidence, the argument is nulled as guns are not used in self-defense enough to substantiate the claim.R4) Illegal guns/Pro’s of CCWIn this argument Pro argues that since there are so many illegal guns in the US, banning guns would not take away the illegal ones. Yet we both agreed the resolution was that once all guns are effectively banned from the United States, the effect of the elimination of guns would not achieve the objective of the ban. This argument is non-topical.The second argument is non-topical as well. Whether or not CCWs (Carrying a Concealed Weapon) are effective does not have to do with a gun ban. My opponent has to show that a complete gun ban would not be effective in achieving its goal, not whether or not CCWs are effective. This argument has no impact as well.R5) Britain has a higher violent crime than the U.SHere Pro claims that because Britain has high gun control it still has high crime, and in America with low gun control crime is lower than the U.K. Yet Pro forgets we are talking about a gun ban, not high gun control, these are two different laws. Gun control means you need more background checks and training, but people can still have lots of guns. There is no relation here, the U.K has a different culture, and these statistics could be the result of lots of different factors that I mentioned in R2. This argument fails to prove Pro’s side of the debate.ConclusionI would like to thank my opponent for the excellent debate and tell anyone reading this thank you! [1] http://www.bjs.gov...Pg. 12[2] Johnson, Timothy. "Gun Researcher John Lott Offers False Firearm Statistics Days Before Congressional Appearance." Media Matters for America. N.p., 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Sept. 2015.http://mediamatters.org...