A gun ban should be instituted in American law.

To begin with, I would like to begin by defining the key terms present in Con's proposition. Should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com......) Ban - to prohibit especially by legal means. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com......) Institute - to establish in a position or office. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Firstly, Con has explicitly failed to state why he believes a gun ban in the U. S is ridiculous or provided any evidence as to why such a proposition is 'ridiculous'. Con has used low modality in his opening argument by stating he 'believes' a gun ban in the U. S. A is completely ridiculous. What Con does or does not believe is not topical and therefore irrelevant. Today, I will be arguing that a gun ban should be instituted in the U. S. A. My first reason for this is that banning guns would significantly reduce the rate of murders in the country. Take for example, the UK, which has approx. 6.2 guns per 100 people, and the low firearm homicide rate of 0.07 murders per 100'000 people. In contrast, the US, with 88 guns per 100 people and the higher firearm homicide rate of 2.97 murders per 100'000 people. Here, it would appear that the relationship is simple; decrease the number of firearms, drastically decrease the number of firearm-related murders. This trend continues in the corresponding total murder rates for the two countries: with the US having a murder rate of 4.8 per 100'000 people and the UK having a murder rate of 1.2 per 100'000 people. Of course, many anti-firearm control lobbyists would repeat the tired cliche that; 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' - when in fact this is only partly true. The truth is that the guns themselves do not kill people, but rather make it much easier to kill people. Guns essentially make killing more accessible, lethal and potentially dangerous. The undeniable fact present in this argument is that guns are killing machines and the US government's failure to regulate firearms for so long has led to them being ingrained in US society. This 'gun culture' has brought about such tragedies as the Sandy Hook massacre, and it is only the NRA(National Rifle Association) and friends' defense of the Second Amendment that maintains firearm prevalence in the US. The principal defense of guns is constitutional. The Second Amendment ensures that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " It's used as the final authority, to be deferred to even if not agreed with or understood. But the Constitution isn't the Bible. (The Second Amendment, being an amendment, is a testament to the Constitution's ability to correct itself. ) The Founding Fathers were neither infallible nor divine. And times change. And so I ask you, what is it about guns that you believe in? Do you believe in the Constitution itself, and the right to a free and well-regulated militia? Or is the guns themselves you believe in? Your, 'right to shoot bullets' per se. But on the subject of the Constitution, surely you would have supported amending the Constitution to abolish slavery, give women the vote, end Prohibition, etc? The burden of proof lies with Con to determine why a gun ban should NOT be instituted in the U. S and in doing so, must explicitly state what is it that makes guns so constitutional? What makes guns necessary?