On balance a ban on guns would not be that effective in the US

Offering rebuttalsR1) The intent of a gun banThis entire argument is a fallacy. Note the resolution which says on balance. My adversary claims that " This may seem like only a small drop in the bucket, but these are the lives of innocent people, being taken by accidents that would not have occurred if the homeowners did not have a gun accessible. "On balance a small drop in the bucket does not counteract the cost, the effort, nor accomplish the initial intent of the gun ban. On balance would mean that overall or in most situations gun bans work and are effective in reducing harm. My adversary has just conceded that this only reduces a small amount of harm, therefore per the resolution he concedes this. R2) Culture My adversary makes a claim that because of the culture argument I am assuming guns bans would not be as effective in America compared to Australia. This is false. This is an absolute fact and I presented the amount of guns in private ownership and so forth to show how intertwined the US is with guns. We have 100 times the amount of guns Australia has in private ownership. To put this in perspective we have 3 million guns in the hands of the business/government which is more than all of the guns in Australia in private ownership alone. he then claims" With a nation that has so many guns in circulation, there are certainly many who would support them being taken away. We know that many are willing to give up guns, because gun buybacks are still popular. "This is also false. On recent polls it is shown that an all time of low of 26 percent of Americans are in favor of a handgun ban. This is not even addressing a federal gun ban on all guns, but just hand guns. Logically this number would drop lower if the government tried to implement a full out ban. R3) Gun buy backs He commits an ad populum here. (a) This article only says a decent number of guns were received and this was primarily conducted in a city that is mainly for gun control laws. (b) This is not considering the other half of the nation that is directly opposed to gun control such as the southern states and more conservative statesOn balance gun buy backs would be opposed and not work. Check the graph in my previous contention that notes only 26 percent of Americans are in agreement with a ban on handguns. Again this number would drastically decrease if it was a full ban or buyback. To add to this there are only 11 states even considering stricter gun control legislation so no a majoirty of the US would no comply with gun buy backs[3] R4) The root cause/ gun laws being ineffectiveThis is just blatantly wrong. My adversary flat claims that people would not find other avenues to kill if a gun ban were implemented. I have cited a source to prove this wrong in the prior round. In addition to this he fails to address this gun control on balance is ineffective. Here are just some more studies to prove that. These are situations where crime and murder rates went up directly after gun bans. [1]" [P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)" [2]Again this study from harvard shows that when guns are banned, crime with other weapons soar. This proves that people will find other weapons and ways to commit crime and violent if guns are banned. So on balance we are not addressing the problemConclusionMy adversary has dropped(a) effectiveness of a gun ban(b) case for practically implementing gun control and the NRA(c) failed to address most of the on balance arguments by straw manning the pointsIn turn everything he offered as a refuation, I have in turn refuted. He commits an ad populum and fails to understand that on balance, which means in most cases gun control is ineffective.Resolution negated Sources[1] http://townhall.com...[2] http://theacru.org...[3] http://www.usatoday.com...