A complete gun ban in the United States

I thank my opponent for a thought provoking refutation :)Rebuttal:Ineffective"but as we are debating A complete gun ban in the United States, rather than the practicality of a complete ban, I may nullify this point and move."I extensively disagree. If we were debating under the following resolution: "Should we travel to Mars?" a valid contention would be that we do not have the necessary technology to travel there, so if we were to attempt to land a spacecraft on Mars, it would likely be a failed mission. I commend to Pro that practicality is a variable that we ought to deabte.Pro then proposes a very idealistic method of retrieving the weapons. As I have stated, how would the Police know who or who does not have firearms? People could easily not hand in their weapons, without any legal repercussion unless they are caught. If they do manage to retirieve the already legally bought weapons, I have stated that they only provide a infinitesimally tiny contribution to crime and murders.Pro states: "If we were to make illegal and seize a majority of firearms in the United states, which would lead to the elimination of straw sales and corrupt gun sales, how in fact would criminals acquire weapons effectively?" My answer, is simply that they wouldn't." But provides no evidence for necessary justification. Pro merely opines that this is the case. "Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing? a knife Bank heist? The truth is that while we may find new ways to attack each other, we should not let that form keeping us from banning the especially dangerous ones."This is an appeal to extremes fallacy. Just because one weapon is not the necessary weapon of choice for a very unlikely incident, does not mean that the point is invalid.Refutation:WeaponsThis argument Pro opines that guns are dangerous because they are a weapon. However, the assumed syllogism could be used to ban anything.P1: x is a weaponP2: x can hurt peopleC: x should be bannedThis logic can ban anything. As Pro define earlier, a weapon is something that: is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you". A car could necessarily be used as a weapon, therefore, we should ban cars. Fruit and vegetables can be used as a weapon, therefore, we should ban fruit and veg. The possibility of death does not necessitate a gun ban.His next argument assumes the following syllogism:P1: Risk is badP2: Guns increase riskC: Therefore, guns should be bannedBeing in a car increases your chances of dying in a car crash. There are numerous entities that increase the risk of death. Increased risk does not necessiate a gun ban."Furthermore, if hypothetically we could were to remove every gun off of the street, we would not need a gun to defend ourselves with."I agree. However, this is completely idealistic, and Pro has not proposed a viable method to collect all 300 million firearms."And this would drastically drop the risk of homicide as a disturbing study revealed that one in ten people with sever anger issue has access to a gun, and up to 20% of those people, are armed at all times."Pro commits the slippery slope fallacy, or the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Pro states that these angered people would definitely kill people if they had access to guns - yet provides no evidence for it.Conclusion:I have shown that Pro's method of retrieving the guns are impracticle and non-viable and I have shown that Pro's arguments does not necessiate a gun ban, since we could use the same logic to ban everything. Thanks for the response Pro and I wish you good luck in the following round :)