Ban on all guns

I would like to apologize, as I made a error in my last debate saying "firearms" but what I meant to say was bombs. Just in case of any confusion. Yes, Aurora CO and Newton was heartbreaking and very damaging and I do support full back round checks on mental stance. The mentally ill should not be allowed to own a gun. But, now should that mean a strip of semi-automatic weapons to law abiding and responsible gun citizens and owners? I personally, don't believe so. I mean, in Chicago, shows it is proof positive it fails. The same with DC, NYC and any other strict gun control region. I hear about gun violence in Chicago, quite a lot. Yes, semi-automatics are made to fire quite rapidly, but when it comes to it I would feel more comfortable using a weapon that fires that much against someone who is threatening my life than use a single shot. The nation"s total violent crime rate peaked in 1991. Since then, it has decreased 49%, to a 41 year low, including a 52% drop in the nation"s murder rate, to a 48-year low"nearly the lowest point in American history.3 Meanwhile, the number of the most popular firearm that gun control supporters call an "assault weapon""the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle"has risen by 3.5 million, the number of all semi-automatic firearms has risen by about 50 million, and the total number of privately-owned firearms has risen by over 120 million.4 The number of new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds has risen by many tens of millions.5. The second amendment in the bill of rights provides the people provides that the right of the people to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed. That is why the senior senator of California has failed twice, to pass the bill. Semi-automatics and guns are the problem, people are the problem in this world. Like I said, Chicago, Illinois has had the strictest gun control laws in America and has acted in the past the past few years and it twice as likely to be killed in Chicago than the Afgani war. For the past 11 years and 8 months 2,166 have been killed. Now in only years Chicago 4,265 people have been killed and 3,371 of them from being shot. Is that something we want to model our state laws after? Now, even though 3,371, only 38 were killed with a rifle if we do the math that is barely 1 percent. 98% were killed with handguns. So creating gun control legislation that targets assault riffles has statistically proven has only to weed out 1% if you're lucky. I'd also like to state that none of the guns in this case in Chicago were either registered or licensed for people to use them. Thus, simply restricting guns will not stop criminals. In my last debate, I stated if they want them they will find a illegal dealers to get them. Restricting guns won't stop criminals from harming others in general. Also, in China, the same day as Sandy Hook on December 14th a man stabbed 22 children and 1 adult. When my opponent states that it's about stopping massacres, gun's are not the only thing that are in massacres, or at least that what you made it sound intended to be. That China spree sounded like a massacre. I would just like to point out that people seem to think police are the only one's who should be able to carry those weapons. Well, yes they should be carrying those weapons, but us as citizens should be able to carry those because we face the same things they do. They higher their chances of it but people face danger everyday. It's all over the news. More gun crimes have been committed without the usage of semi-automatics. But this debate isn't just about semi-automatics, it's about all guns in general. Gun violence has actually gone down with less gun control. It was at its peak in 1991 but when Bill Clinton came into office into 1993 it has actually gone down. That is why I don't see the need for gun control bans. I thank you again, for joining me in this debate.