more gun regulation should exist

Kind Regards for this Debate. I will take the Con side of the topic "more gun regulation should exist" and thus will be against more gun regulations. 1st I would like to define that we are talking about the USA here, as Pro has not stated what country we are talking about. Further I would like to define 'gun' as firearms and 'regulations' as sale regulations.Opening Statement:I would first of all like to point to the topic, "more gun regulation should exist". This topic is quite clear, however Pro has not actually posted a reason why this should happen. As Pro has not included an actual argument I will dismiss the majority of Pros statement as it has no context. However, I will still give my arguments, as well as do some rebuttals as to what Pro has stated in their opening statement. First of all I would like to dismiss the common fallacy that Pro has used, "the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons", as this is simply incorrect. If we take a look at the number 2 country of firearms per capita (after the USA), Serbia, with 69.7 firearms per 100 residents and looking at Pros thesis, Serbia should have a huge homicide rate. False. In fact, Serbia has about the same homicide rate as Australia, which Pro used as a 'case study' about how well firearm regulation works. In fact, the majority of European countries have about 30 firearms per 100 (except Britain) and have extremely low homicide rates, a fraction of the US rate. And just to make this thesis even more ridiculous, the country with the highest murder rate, Honduras, has a small amount of firearms, only about 6.6 per 100. Brazil, the country with the most murders, 50,108 in 2012, also has a relatively low rate of firearms per capita, about 8 per 100. (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) Please note that the image is missing several European countries, such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and more. These all have high firearms per capita yet low homicide rates. If this does not prove Pros thesis as incorrect then I do not know what will. However, now to my reason as to why there should not be more regulations. 1st: The US constitution:The US constitution gives US citizens/residents the right to bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Furthermore, the actual reason as to this is very important. No, the reason is not hunting or personal self defence. It is for defending the human liberties. The founding fathers were of the opinion that in order to create true democracy the citizens had to be armed. In case the government turned tyrannical, the citizens could regain their liberty as well as their country. After all, Government is supposed to be afraid of the people, not the other way around! 2nd: Firearms have no relation to violence:As proven above, there is no relation. This brings me to number 33rd: The 'US problem' is because of society, not firearms:Why are countries that are very similar to the US not affected by the same issue? The answer is simple. It is the US society. The US media bombards the viewer constantly with 'end of the world' and 'you are dying' issues. No surprise people react the way they do. Furthermore, the US prison system is not working, but this is a different issue. 4th: Firearms control does not work:When I lived in Europe I had several firearms pulled on me, although there are tight laws. And I am sure none of those were legal. In fact, even where I live in Australia there are illegal firearms. This is actually quite close to my area, and these firearms would even be illegal in many parts of the US. Yet they are home build, seemingly. This means that gun control does not work. In fact the hardest thing to acquire for a firearm are the bullets, not the firearm itself. Anyone could go to their local hardware store and buy the necessary components for a working firearm. And the people who would have firearms if all were taken away would be criminals and not normal citizens. 5th: Protection for the US:Lets say the US was invaded, not only would its armed forces pull off a hell of a fight, in every bush there would be some guy with a rifle taking shots at the enemy. This improves the US defensive power dramatically. 6th: Prime use of firearms:The grand majority of firearms never get used on humans. It would be like banning all knives because somebody got stabbed. I am sure that the majority of people use knives every day and do not get stabbed nor stab anyone, it is the same with firearms. Anything can kill you, that doesn't mean everything needs to be 'regulated'7th: The firearm makes equal:The modern semi-automatic firearm is the 1st thing in history that has made all people more or less equal. The possibility for a 5ft female to release 10 rounds in a short succession into a 6ft male has made people truly equal, where they are not, body and strength wise. Or is this not a good thing?I could keep going, but I think that is enough. Conclusion:Con has displayed 7 reasons as to why firearms should not be more regulated while Pro has not even shown one reason.What Pro has provided, the out of context 'evidence' was easily negated by statistics and proven to be simply not true.Thus I, as Con, am still of the opinion that there should not be more firearms regulations.Kind Regards to Pro for the debate, I am looking forward to your arguments.