Gun control is futile.

Thank you, Con.REBUTTALS"All of my opponent’s arguments are in regards to gun ban, NOT gun control. This means, that my opponent has not shown weather gun CONTROL is effective. Gun ban in fact is irrelevant. Furthermore, I have shown how fewer guns means less homicide."Control- to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command. [1]Ban- to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict. [2]Forbid- to command (a person) not to do something, have something, etc., or not to enter some place [3]Because to ban means to forbid something, and forbid means to command someone not to do something, they are the same as control, because it means to dominate or command.Gun control and a gun ban are the same concept, if not the same thing.'“for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. (2)"This quote is wrong. Not to mention all the study along with it. Studies show that, and I quote: "The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 peopleBut the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people." [4]So that research does not make any sense, because all of these countries have tried to control gun rights in some way, and the USA is only #28 on the top homicide rates. Yemen doesn't restrict guns, the 3 leading countries do."Not allowing guns in a movie theater means gun control. Not allowing 3 year old guns to shoot guns means “gun control.” Even the slightest restriction means “gun control.” By my opponent’s definition the slightest restriction would indeed be gun control. This does not mean a ban. For an example, don’t let a nine year old shoot an Uzi means gun control. Recently a nine year old fatally shot her instructor with an Uzi when the gun slipped out of her hand. (3) Follow my logic"Follow my logic. A ban is controlling/commanding something based on the definitions.ARGUMENTSBrazil high homicide ratesBrazil homicide rates have been rising since 1980. In 2005, they tried to control the rates by passing the "2005 Referendum concerning the prohibition of the sale of firearms and ammunition." This was ineffective. Note, this is a ban on guns, it is prohibiting firearms and ammunition being purchased. As said before, a ban is relevent to controlling guns. Based on this graph, (http://riotimesonline.com...) the referndum has failed. Although rates have dropped, they have only dropped about 2 points. Also, the rate rises and drops every year from now, so it is ineffective.The amount of firearms per 100 people, compared to homicide ratesA research has shown that in fact, when less firearms are provided for civilians, the higher the homicide rate goes up. [5] This is proven by this graph: (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...) Notice how the homicide rates on the left side of the graph are higher, that means that gun control is used, because firearms are not provided to civilians. "Looking at all countries for which the Small Arms Survey measured gun ownership, and using the Small Arms Survey data the way that it measures gun ownership, implies that more guns equals fewer homicides." [5]Conclusion:Based on the homicide rates of the countries with more firearms available to citizens compared to less, it seems that less (gun control) have actually gone higher, proving my opponent's "study" is wrong. This again, proves that gun control is not only ineffective, but it is doing the opposite of what it should be doing for countries.Over to you, Con.Cites:[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]- http://www.theguardian.com...[5]- http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...