Guns Should be Banned for Civilians in the USA

Never during my arguments have I claimed the banning guns will increase stability in the USA. My argument is that a complete ban on guns should be implemented in the USA because guns have been proven to cause an increase in crime, and that they cause more harm than good. The countries that were listed by the con in his initial argument were China, East Timor, Romania, Israel and Japan. The ban on civilian guns in China was implement in 1996, since then the number of gun related homicides have continued to fall, from 26,276 in 2002 to 14,811 in 2008. http://www.gunpolicy.org...Compare these statistics to data showing that gun related homicides in the USA have been on the rise. From 9,257 in 1998 to 11,101 in 2011. The reason why there are more gun related homicide in China than the USA is because the population of China is almost 4 times the population of the USA.http://www.gunpolicy.org...Moving on the East Timor. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get accurate data from this particular area because of the countries current situation. This means that it cannot be use to prove either argument. However there are accurate statistics for Romania, Israel, and Japan.In Romania there are only 5 gun related homicides every year.In Israel there are only 6 gun related homicides every year.In Japan there are only 11 gun related homicides every year. http://www.guardian.co.uk...The cons arguments are based on incorrect stereotypes about particular countries, and show a general ignorance about the situation of countries outside of the USA.It is true that there has only been an almost complete ban on owning firearms in the UK. You are only allowed to own guns in the UK if you can demonstrate a "genuine need" to own a firearm. Self defence is not considered a genuine need.http://djilp.org...The con is correct in stating that England and Wales are not the best countries to use for my argument, however the countries that the con listed are perfect examples of bans on guns reducing gun related homicides. The example of England and Wales does still support my argument because it could be argued that a complete ban would reduced the gun related deaths even more.The con argues that the lives of 8,500 people are not worth very much in the whole scheme of things and therefore there is no reason why anything should be done to save them. Yes, you can be killed with other weapons, but guns make it so much easier because one shot can easily kill and it is impossible to outrun a bullet. It would be impossible to stop all homicides around the world, but if even a fraction of them can be saved then surely it is worth it.There is a reason why there is a court system in the US. It was designed so that people are given the punishments that they deserve. In the con's eyes anyone who breaks into a house deserves the death penalty. There are other ways for people to defend themselves from attackers. Knives, pepper spray, locks, alarms ext.As I have been saying throughout my entire argument, guns make it easier for people kill because it is so fast and so impersonal that they don't have time to think about their actions. Many men who have killed their wives with a gun, would never have committed the act if it wasn't so easy to do (if the gun was not within reach).Actually my comment "Homicide rates increased because people who owned handguns that never left the house, suddenly came out in silent protest against the new ban by actually carrying their gun around in the streets." does have evidence. Gun bans were brought into Australia in 1996, during that year gun related homicides increased from 67 in 1995 to 104 in 1996. This was because of the very situation I described, then as the ban sunk in for the residents homicides dropped to 79 in 1997, and then continued to drop as the years progressed.http://www.aic.gov.au...If a gun ban is introduced, police officers can charge gun owners for possession of illegal firearms before any shots are fired. Otherwise it wouldn't be a ban on guns.The con's statement about not knowing what the founding fathers assumed is idiotic. If there is no way of knowing what the founding fathers really meant by saying firearms, then it cannot be used to support the cons debate either because for all we know the founding fathers were saying that people have the right to set their arms alight.It would actually be very easy to collect the guns once a ban is implemented. In Australia in 1996 the government offered to buy any guns (for a reasonable price) that anyone wanted to sell. This meant that people could get rid of the guns that were now illegal to own, but also get some sort of reward, which gave people an incentive.Reasons why guns should be banned1) It has been proven that a complete ban on guns does reduce the number of homicides2) Guns are very effective killing machines that are statistically more likely to be used in criminal behaviour3) It is very easy to collect guns with the government offering to buy the guns4) Too many gun related killings are from domestic assault5) There are many other ways for people to defend themselves without resorting to the use of guns6) In 2011 19,766 people killed themselves using guns. People who commit suicide often choose to use guns because it is quick and relatively painless. Many people who contemplate suicide decide not to because they do not have access to a gun.7) Hunting is a pointless exercise which is rapidly losing interest because guns make it too easy for a kill to be made 8) Continued development in gun technology is making it easier for people to commit mass murders9) The constitution is very outdated and its rules on guns have no place in modern society10) Gun bans allow police to charge people for possession of an illegal fireman before anyone is actually killed11) Guns encourage people to act as vigilantes and to bypass the court system12) When learning to shoot people are often told to shoot at human shaped targets, which is very sadistic as it also teaches which parts of the human body will cause the most damage when hit with a bullet. More or less they are training killers13) Bullets are impossible outrun and some guns have such a large range that the victim may not even realise they are being targeted------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Guns clearly, based on the evidence that is displayed through my argument, increase the number of homicides and general crime that occur in the country every year. While they are effective means of self defence there are many other ways that people can protect themselves. Guns have no place in modern civilised society and cause so much more bad that they do good.