On balance, a ban on civilian firearm ownership would be beneficial to the United States

Premise I: Correlation of Gun Ownership and Violence.As Pro’s only case goes, gun ownership correlates with murder rates. This isn't entirely true. As Washington DC is a great example, where high gun laws + low gun counts are matched by high murder rates (1). Notably the murder rate has gone down, but it has in almost every state, so this is a nationwide trend, not a gun control trend. In fact, this will come back to haunt DC in Premise III.A long compilation of data I put together shows that, as of 2010, states with strict laws (what I defined as having 3 of the 4 applicable laws listed [Firearm Registration, Owner License required, "Assault Weapon" Law, NFA Weapons Restricted]) averaged at a murder rate of 6.75 per 100,000. Meanwhile, states with Assault Weapon laws and Firearm restrictions averaged at 7 and 7.2 per 100,000. The average for all states? 4.4 per 100,000. The only two categories to have a murder rate less than the average were states with no laws or with open-carry laws, at 3.9 and 4.2 per 100,000. (2 [sources for compilation are 3,4]). Note that the data is from the year 2010, while the original source has been updated to 2011. The 2010 numbers can be found in Source 1 of this page.As the data goes, higher gun restrictions and bans do not correlate with lower homicide rates. It appears to be the opposite, in fact. But murder isn't the only violent crime, and gun laws aren't the only determining factor here.Pulling together a list of each state’s gun ownership and several violent crimes rates (5), we see several realizations. The first is that aggravated assault does not correlate with gun ownership in the least. Neither in a pro-gun or pro-control way. The next thing we notice is that the rate of murder also does not seem to correlate in any noticeable pattern, although as shown prior, gun laws do show a correlation. We do get a large correlation with robberies though, where the rate of robberies decrease on average as gun ownership goes up. The exception being Kentucky, whose robbery count would be out-of-place anywhere on the chart. This all being said, it’s apparent that lower gun ownership rates don’t correlate with any statistic except for robbery, where the correlation is pro-gun. But to see the finer details, we can cut the chart into four groups. LOW ownership (0% - 29%), MEDIUM ownership (30% - 39%), HIGH ownership (40%-49%), and VERY HIGH ownership (50%+). What does that data say? (6)Murder RateLOW = 4.0 MEDIUM = 4.3HIGH = 4.2VERY HIGH = 4.2Not a notiable correlation. The 0.2 per 100,000 gap is too small to act on.Aggravated AssaultLOW = 239.8MEDIUM = 218.4HIGH = 234.1VERY HIGH = 240.3Again, no major difference between LOW and VERY HIGH. MEDIUM and HIGH seem to be the best area, but those still range from 30-49% gun ownership. Hardly matching Pro's idea of a world with a ban on firearm ownership.RobberyLOW = 129MEDIUM = 92.9HIGH = 82.9VERY HIGH = 47.2Here, we see a massive pro-gun correlation. The highest robbery rate in the VERY HIGH group is 102.2, lower than all but two LOW ownership states.Total Violent CrimeLOW = 395.6MEDIUM = 348.8HIGH = 341.3VERY HIGH = 328.2While Pro can claim what he’d like, Murder (which has very little correlation between rate and gun ownership) isn't the only major stat, or even the most important one. Total Violent Crime is, generally, lower the higher Gun Ownership goes up. This is the main statistic to consider, and it does not support Pro's claim.1) http://tinyurl.com...2) https://www.facebook.com...3) http://www.nraila.org...4) http://www.atf.gov...5) http://tinyurl.com...6) http://tinyurl.com...Premise II: Guns Kill People.This argument is based on the faulty principle that an inanimate object can act or do things. Until Pro can show prove of a gun pulling it's own trigger, we can conclude that an inanimate object can not act, and the action must than be the human's. Pro's logic is an attempt to shift blame from the killer to the gun.We conclude with this formal logic:A) Inanimate objects can not perform actions.B) Guns are inanimate objects.C) Guns can not perform actions (humans perform the action of pulling a trigger.)D) Killing is an Action.E) Guns can not kill.Therefore: Guns can not kill. Although they can be used to kill, like a knife or Wii remote can be used to kill, but none the less, did not, itself, commit the action as it can not perform actions. The action (pulling trigger) must be done by a human.Premise III: A Look at Homicide Rates Globally.Despite Pro's attempt to prove homicides would decrease, other nations prove this to not be the case. Britain, the holy grail of Gun Control, seems to hide a past that counters the Liberal claim. In 1997, the British Gun Ban was implemented with the murder rate of 11.5 per million. Prior, the highest was 13 per million. The nation begin a near perfect climb upwards, ending at 18 per million (an increase of almost 40%) in 2004. For the vast majority of the 2000's, the murder rate was higher than before the gun ban. It is, as of now, around the same as before the gun ban.The UK has, however, one major difference in their crime measurements. They only add in crimes where someone is convicted. If someone is murdered, but the police can't find the murderer, it isn't counted. This greatly decreases what their crime rate looks like. We know how big of an effect this has, because if used on the US, murder rates go from 4.7 to 2.26 per 100,000.Two other nations who implemented gun bans... Ireland and Jamaica. The nations implemented a ban in 1972 and 1974, with murder rates of 0.4 and 11 per 100,000. Afterwards, they saw immediate increases in murder rates. Of course, this isn't about the short-term implemantation, but the long-term effects after implemantion. Where are the nations 40+ years after implemantation? Ireland and Jamaica are now at 1.4 and 58 per 100,000. This is an increase of 3.5x and 5.2x from before the ban (all numbers written respectively.)But what about in the US? There are numbers for that. Washington DC and Chicago's gun ban took place in 1977 and 1963. DC's violent crime rate was 1,426.5 per 100,000. The Gun Ban did nothing to halt the rising rate, which continued to grow as high as 2,921.8 per 100,000. It has gone done to 1,243.7 per 100,000, but understand that this correlates with a massive nation-wide decline in crime, of which DC is lacking behind (7). DC's crime rate relative to the nation is still higher now than in 1977, showing it's struggling to keep up with the decrease in crime the rest of the nation has enjoyed. It was 1.3 (1 being equal with the national average) than, but has sense climbed to 1.8 (almost twice the national average). Chicago has gone from a straight 1, to 1.5 ( passing a complete 2.25 in 1997 [over twice national average.])This proves that Gun Bans do not work, and on occasion, correlates with higher rates of violent crimes. Be it in a State, or a nation with a full ban. (8 [ for whole Premise.])7) http://www.disastercenter.com...8) http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...Conclusion: Despite Pro's best efforts, Gun Bans correlates only with an increase in crime or has no correlation at all, depending on the case. Gun Ownership has zero correlation with all rates except for Robbery, where higher ownership = less robberies. Gun laws, however, correlates with murder rates in a manor that greatly harms Pro's case.While I've shown gun bans only increase crime or does nothing to stop it, I've also proven that US Cities with gun bans begin lagging behind other cities in violent crime rates.A Gun Ban would not help the US, and even seems to correlate with higher crime rates in other nations and cities, requardless of how long it has been in place.