The U.S should ban guns

=Patriarchy=Pro says that I need to show that these people are dominating over us, but lets' look at the defintion of Patriarchy.Patriarchy.: a family, group, or government controlled by a man or a group of menTherefore,what I said still applies. The government is incharge of its' citizens, therefore it is in control of the country. The fact that the government is mainly male, proves my point. According to this article, it even admits that. Pro says congress is working on protecting women interests, but fails to actually say what they are, and if they are actually working.http://www.theatlantic.com...Pro says that gun control is not an example of correlation=causation, but the very act itself indicates more patriarchy. The government is forcing people to do something is an example of this. Regardless, I fail to see how banning guns woild limit patriarchy like Pro says, because Pro doesn't take into factor, that a gun is simply a tool, and it's up to the individual to decide how to use it appropriately. Pro doesn't give us any significant information that indiciates that the usage of the Male phallus gun is more harmful.=Culture=Pro analogy on Nazi Germany makes sense, but I fail to see how this would equate to banning guns. Pro doesn't really explain how banning guns is the moral thing to do. I already have shown that guns saves lives, and this is definitely moral, if I follow the utilairian principle. If there is nothing significantly negative about the thing that should be preserved, then I see no reason to ban it. =Law enforcement and Military=The very job of law enforcemnet is to protect people from danger, and I'm kind of suprised Pro is actually contesting this.Murdering and inflicting on the right to live is against the law. The role of law enforcement is to keeping the peace, law enforcement, protection of people and property and the investigation of crimes. Therefore, protecting people is part of the social contract. Pro's solution to prevent murder is to solve poverty. I agree with this, but this wouldn't protect people from an immient threat. If a robber was breaking into somebodies house, resolving the poverty issue wouldn't have any impact, because it's a long term goal. Nobody will be there to stop the robber, because the cops aren't armed, and neither are the citizens.=Self Defense=My apologizes. For not linking the site. I'll provide a link in the description, but what say is true. I don't know what Pro is referring to, since the link is broken, I fail to see how it makes a difference, since the 93% number never said all of those people were arrested. I took a screenshot of the FBI report showing the defensive gun use. From 2007-2011, guns were used 235,700 times against violent crime, and 103,000 against property crime. Very clear evidence that guns are used for self-defense. Keep in mind, Only 61% of gun crime was actually reported, so the number may very well be much higher. This is the same link Pro used, but it was broken, so I'll provide the link.=Ecnonomy=Pro is alternating arguments between her definition of gun and mine. Her first 2 rebutalls were adressing my definition of guns, but for some reason she choose her's for this rebutall.Anyways, not once did Pro show Patriarchy causes wars. I also have no reason to believe her right to live is more important than thousands of people losing their job, espcially since using the phallus gun is simply a choice.= Not practical=I don't agree with this analogy. Why wasn't it practical? I can't really see why it isn't. They were in charge of killing millions of people. (not saying this for argument sake)http://www.bjs.gov... https://en.wikipedia.org...