Gun bans would not be very effective in the U.S.A

Thank you Con for accepting=Disclaimer=I think for me to talk about what is effective, I first should tell everybody what the intended result of banning guns are. The main purpose of banning guns is to reduce the violent crime rate that has been plaguing the United States for nearly half a century. So this is what I will base my debate off. Whether gun bans would be effective in reducing the violent crime rate. Y'all can refer to this document(1) Note it says "fight against violence and crime" Not just gun violenceC1: Gun culture The reason why I believe gun bans would not be that effective is because there is already a prevelant gun culture currently existing in America. We Americans love guns. Guns are part of our culture. Banning guns nationwide would severely effect those who depend on guns for their daily activities. For example, the state of New York. There are appoximately 15.1 hunters per square mile. So, banning guns would have a major impact on their way of life. (2)C2: Little effect in certain statesLet me take the state of Vermont for example. It's a state that has much less restrictions on guns [3], and its homicide rate in 2013, was 1.3 per 100,000 [1]. So, here is evidence that banning guns would not make a huge difference. Vermont is basically a state with 0 gun control, and it's homicide rate its one of the safest in the country. What exactly would be the point of gun bans? People in Vermont depend on guns for hunting etc.., and it is very clear that most of their gun owners are responsible law abidding citizens.C3: Guns are used for self-defenseGuns are used by Americans for self-defense annually. Studies found that approximately two million defensive gun uses occur each year[4]. In other studies it showed that between 800,000 and 2 million defensive gun uses are used per year[5], which show that guns save lives and protect against criminals. Let me compare this to the annual homicide rate.(4) You can see in 2013, the # of murders that occured were about 14,827. So the amount of times guns have been used for defensive purposes is nearly 100 times more than the total homicides that occured. Keep in mind, that not all of those murder's were commited by guns. Only 60%, or 8.855 murders. Well, you might think, "well gun bans would atleast prevent 8,885 murders." I'll show in my next contention why that is not the case.C4: Illegal guns/ Pro's of CCWSo the United States has a big issue dealing with Illegal guns. There are approximately, 250 to 280 million guns in circulation in the U.S. In other words, 93% of gun crime is actually commited by illegal guns. (5) This number is so insanely high, it almost wouldn't make any significant difference, if all law abiding citizens were forced to give their guns away. Now I will explain how CCW actually has benefited more. Ever since CCW states have enacted CCW's to their citizens, states have witnessed an 8.5% drop in murders, 5% in rapes, 7% in aggrevated assaults and 3% in robberies. So, in some states, CCW does serve as a detterent to crime.C5:Britain has a higher violent crime than the U.SThis is also a good example of why banning guns wouldn't mean anything. U.S actually has a violent crime rate of 466 of 100,00. Meanwhile the U.K, a country who has the strictest gun control in the EU, has a 2,304 of 100,000. Really what this means, is that you won't likely get shot in the U.K, but you will probably get shanked with a butter knife. (6)Joke asides, I found an article that attempted to debunk this claim. It basically talks about how the U.K's definition for violent crime is different from the U.S. Even then, the author still conceded that the U.K had more violent crime than the U.S at 776 per 100,00 (7)1:http://www.gunpolicy.org......2:https://www.qdma.com......4:http://www.statista.com......5:http://crimeresearch.org......6:http://www.telegraph.co.uk......7:http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com......