the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

Before I continue with this round, I would like to make a quick correction in the previous round. I made the mistake of referring to dairygirl4u2c as "con" when I should be using "pro" since relative to me, she is against me, but it should be the stance on the conclusion. Henceforth, I will now be referring to dairygirl4u2c as "pro".In my previous argument, I made the claim, "Currently, most guns are already banned." It seems pro has no opinion on my claim with her claim, "i dont know if this is true or not..." Although it is not related to the conclusion, pro's comment still bothers me in the lack of awareness in this issue regardless of the evidence and reference I provided as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The federal law is indeed extensive to go through so I will reference a summary for easy reading and comprehension [9].Pro makes the claim, "con compares guns to eating bacon. which is riduculous." I agree with this statement that it is in fact ridiculous, but I disagree that I made that comparison. Pro, I read the research that you provided and it only studied the risk of having a gun in a home, leading to a higher rate of homicide and suicide. I did not disagree with the study, but what I did disagree with was using the study as a premise for the conclusion. Once again, the conclusion is, "the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them." I believe that pro has failed in understanding my premise of comparing the risk of an object. I did not compare guns to bacon. I compared the risks of eating bacon and the risks of having guns in home, which in the worst case scenario is death. I argued, "risk should not be the only factor in banning something and is not sufficient for the banning." My argument still holds since pro has failed to demonstrate with relevant evidence that my specific claim is wrong in the fact that risk should be the only factor to consider when banning something.Pro makes the claim, "guns are designed to kill." I can argue against this, but I feel it is not necessary at the moment since pro has not clear the hurdle of justifying that risk (from her study) should be the only factor in banning guns, which is pro's main premise in supporting the conclusion. I will not argue against this statement since pro has not provided any evidence to support this claim, but I will make a proposal and not go further into it with evidence and examples. I would argue that guns are not designed to kill, but can be use to kill. These are two different statements that means two different things. The intention of the gun itself is different from the intention of the person using the gun.Design:1 - A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other objects before it is built or made.2 - Purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.Use:1 - The action of using something or the state of being used for some purpose.1.1 - The ability or power to exercise or manipulate something, especially one's mind or body.1.2 - A purpose for or way in which something can be used.Pro has rejected my wikipedia source, as expected. I was hoping that a chart would be easy to understand, but now I will have the pleasure of going into the meat of showing that there is no correlation between more guns and higher homicides with evidence to back my statements. Since pro has references to a study, so too, will I. Continuing on my focus on just solely the United States in the correlation of gun ownership and homicide rates from the constraints I set myself in my previous argument (although this study does include other international countries), I will argue that more guns does not mean more homicides in the United States. I shall be using the study from Harvard, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser."International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative." [10]In the study, it can be seen that there is no correlation with more guns means more homicides. There is a negative correlation where there is lower crime rates in higher guns ownership and more crime with less guns ownership."[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country-sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups..." [10]"In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's review of then-extant studies." [10]"On the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s." [10]"There are now 40 states where qualified citizens can obtain such a handgun permit. As a result, the number of U.S. citizens allowed to carry concealed handguns in shopping malls, on the street, and in their cars has grown to 3.5 million men and women. Economists John Lott and David Mustard have suggested that these new laws contributed to the drop in homicide and violent crime rates. Based on 25 years of correlated statics from all of the more than 3,000 American counties, Lott and Mustard conclude that adoption of these statutes has deterred criminals from confrontation crime and caused murder and violent crime to fall faster in states that adopted this policy than in states that did not." [10]These are just some of the examples showing that more guns does not mean more homicides. If you go further into the reading, you can find more examples as well.Pro claims, "we'd have to get rid of it, or go back to an understanding that it only protects state militias." This is just a statement with no substance or evidence so I am free to reject it. Pro has fail to address my concern with banning guns and the United States' Second Amendment. This is a fallacy in of itself of a circular argument, "a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."Premise: We have to get rid of guns.Conclusion: The United States should ban most guns and confiscate them.Gun violence has always been a problem in the United States in the past 40 years and even more, except now, it is being viewed differently, especially on how media is putting it into the faces of its citizens. I urge pro to not use emotion when seeing gun violence, but use sound judgment in finding a solution to this problem. I challenge pro to look up data in regards to the number of homicides per year from guns in the United States and challenge the conception that more guns means more homicides. [9] https://www.cga.ct.gov...[10] http://www.law.harvard.edu...