USA should have more restrictions on guns

"your implied premise which is "guns do more harm than good" when clearly if people are using them 5x more often for self-defense purposes, they do more good than harm no matter what the number is as long as that ratio is kept." con is trying to step back and look at the bigger picture. kudos for that. but if we step fruther back, we see that while there may be more self defense usage of guns, it's at the expense of lots of nonself defense usage. it could even be speculated tehat th only reason we need self defense of guns, is because guns are so pervasive to begin with. and, more precisely, if we took guns down to a minimal level, the number of murders would be very very small. con must be thinking that it is better to ensue people have access to guns, and is willing to allow more murders. so while con's bigger picture has some merit to it, my picture is probably even bigger, and shows that guns are not necesssarily more good than bad. to get out of the australia points, con merely says 'that works for them it won't necessarily work for us'. that's true, but it gives evidence that it could. all con is able to provide that says otherwise, is mere speculation based on the flimsy point that 'they are them and we are us' type thinking. we're actually very similar to them cultually and otherwise. "You are saying that basically, since a gun enables a person to make bad choices, that there is more crime because of it. I could say by giving you money I'm enabling you to be greedy, but it's a false conclusion. Greed is a character flaw, and isn't limited to strictly monetary substance in the same way criminals have characters flaws that don't need guns to enable them to commit crime." i don't think i'm saying that. but even if i was, your analogies are not the same. guns faciliate crime much better than other weopons. and guns are not necessarily needed. people in next to gunless societies are doing okay. money, to use your example, is something that we need. it might have bad conseqences but it is part of our economic system. guns are not necessarily integral unless you try to force it to be. i'm not sure why con digresses into acciental gun discharges and stairs. ive already refuted the point, and he hasn't specifically addressed that. plus we're not focusing on accidents, we're focsing on larger points about how to regulate guns con didn't address my example that most 'criminals' are not black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if the mother of the sandy hook shooter didn't hve a gun, we have no reason to think she would have went and got one. or that he would have been able to break the law and get one himself. in fact it's likely it wouldn't have been the case. there's a eason why mass shootings in austalia ceased to exist after their regulations. but aside from that different country point, basic logic illustrates that gun estrictions would only provide benefit. plus this doesn't even get into the fact tha twith at least ground checks and such, that we're not focusing on the average joe. just the average criminal. and it oesn't negate the possiblity of treating guns like cars, and having training and licenses and inventories. not that we should do this necessarily. the only point in this debate is that we should have more regulation, that it is a good thing. when we're just focusing on bad guys as a minimum point, there's no way to get around that we'd be better off for it. con hasn't adequately addressed that.