banning all guns is wrong

"How would the citizen be in a worst position? You don"t need mines to protect yourself if you got a gun. A gun is the best option and is a lot safer compared to mines. I don"t think I should have to explain this." Okay... Let's break this down into itty-bitty little bits for you. In one scenario we have a criminal breaking into a house with a knife and the owner has a gun either one him or nearby. In the other scenario we have a criminal breaking into a house with a gun at hand and the owner's gun is either one him or nearby. Whether or not the owner kills the criminal or not is not the focus. The second scenario is obviously worst because the criminal has firepower AND he is aware of what he is doing and the owner is not, as he is an unsuspecting victim. Therefore scenario two is worse. Okay? "...I just get annoyed when people say I need to prove somthing[sic] that is common sense." "The right to bare arms means to protect yourself with a gun. Not bombs, tanks, or anything like that. You want proof?" First off, I wasn't asking for proof of what the right to bear arms mean, I was asking proof of, "There is just as much evidence that the outcome could be bad as there is as much that it could do good.". Second, I rebutted the claim that the right to bear arms is limited to a gun by saying, "The right to bare arms mean to protect yourself with whatever weapons are "in common use of the time". The arms that are to bare are both limited and unlimited. Limited by what is popular in the time of the people.", something you have not rebutted but insisted on directing me to retake a high school class. It is YOU who focused on proof for your own claim. And, yes, you are insulting me by implying that I don't have a basic High School education. " I understand that they are one of our biggest allies, but they were before to[sic]." Before what? World War II? No they weren't. Such irrational fears are void. "And please explain the biggest reason I gave, the holocaust. You never explained how I was wrong about that one." You didn't specifically say the Holocaust, you just said "Hitler". But as a response it is difficult to claim Jews as "his people" for they were rounded up and exterminated. It wasn't as if Hitler publicly made guerrilla warfare with the Jews. Even if they were in possession of arms, they would have still been stripped, rounded up and placed into concentration camps. Since this was done systematically in secret the Jews would not have known what to do before it was too late. "My Chicago point is that we already have so many guns in the country that no gun laws would work." Such defeatist logic is futile. It is better to minimize pain than to prolong it by letting the source of pain (guns) roam freely simply because a 100% neutralization is not probable. "Drugs are banned. You think banning guns will be able to stop this?" Again with the defeatist attitude. Doing something is better than nothing. They enforce their drugs and kill people in the masses because of easy access weaponry they buy here. Ban such weaponry and their cartel will crumble to the point of where it is nothing but another drug gang. Banning guns in America is morally right, not just as an American citizen, but as a humanitarian. Such bans will drastically decrease the number of deaths in the U.S., Mexico, and northern South America and cripple cartels as well. Not only that but even if I am wrong my opponent is clearly not the better debater. He obviously has xenophobia and other irrational fears.