Gun Control

Hello again,Have to say again that this debate has been a very challenging one, forcing me to really test my initial conclusions, but as your points drive me to do more research I still must disagree. :)You are correct in stating that my argument is predicated on a general gun ban, though I believe this would have to be phased perhaps over the period of a decade. It would not be possible in America to see everyone convinced, but perhaps if the federal Constitution handed the authority over to the individual states to determine if they wanted a gun ban or not, it would be more of a possibility. I also argued in earlier the following:"I believe based upon these two points primarily that the existence of fire-arms lawfully owned in America is a much more harmful policy to the general public than it is helpful. And it is on such a scale that difficulties to remove fire-arms from our nation would be justifiable. "I do not think it is politically sound or morally sound to determine the correct course of action based upon it's difficulty, these are seperate issues. As to the points my opponent is claiming to have made1. Directly addressed each of my arguments. These attempted rebuttals were mostly attempts to poke holes in the information I was providing, and as I will demonstrate with the correction of his last objection, these will all be addressed.2. Clarify misrepresentation of information. The alleged misrepresentation of information has been addressed, and your remarks about Russia, Mexico and Brazil will be refuted below.3. Provide all relevant sources. No doubt my opponent came prepared with his sources.4. The Harvard source. This is a 45 page attempt at the refutation of the idea that more guns equate to more murders in a given country, with the 3,000 words allotted to each of my arguments, this is hardly sufficient to counter a paper of that size. I have however, continued to provide evidence for my conclusions which do contradict the findings of this source. Last Rebuttal and Conclusion: Mexico & BrazilContrary to the report of my opponent Mexico does not have a gun ban (like that of Japan or the UK), the right to bear arms is actually protected under Article 10 of the 1857 Constitution. [1] Mexico and Brazil are also Latin American countries, this is important to note because of the existing trend within Latin American countries and their murder rates. Total murders in Latin American Countries and Rates[2]Honduras total: 7,104 rate: 91.6El Salvador total: 4,308 rate: 69.2Venezuela total: 13,080 rate: 45.1Belize total: 129 rate: 41.4Guatemala total: 5,681 rate: 38.5Colombia total: 14,746 rate: 31.4Mexico total: 27,199 rate: 23.7Brazil total: 40,974 rate: 21.0Guinea total: 2,152 rate: 22.5 Equador total: 2,638 rate: 18.2My contention is that there are regional issues, primarily the drug cartels and the vast networks of organized crime in this region that accounts for the large number of murders in these countries, and therefore should not be compared neither as countries that have bans (Brazil voted not to have a ban in 2005 with a 63% majority[3]), and the regional issues cause them to be quite inflated compared to modern western socities. RussiaHere again one might be misled to think I am just using statistics that help my argument while excluding those that don't. On the face of things, it appears to be true, but when you look deeper into the facts it is clear why I did not include them. Russia is 9th in the world in the number of fire-arms owned,[4]and while it has been made much harder to obtain fire-arms, there still yet remains to be a general gun ban. It is also important to note that fall of the Soviet Union led to an outbreak of organized crime in the country that lasts until this day. [5] Only in recent years have the rates and numbers been dropping, from 42,160 in 2003 to 11,500 in 2011,[4] largely due to the increased gun controls.