Guns Should be Banned for Civilians in the USA

"The con has listed a few countries which have implemented a complete ban on gun ownership by civilians, however the con only gives very generalised statements about each country and does not show any statistics to support their claim"I listed countries that have completely banned firearms and then made general remarks about the instability/tyranny of living in each of them to show that your argument that no guns = more stability is very false. "In England and Wales there has been an ALMOST complete ban on owning firearms"So now Pro's own arguments are showing that you dont even need to ban all guns to have stability, you only need to have a good amount of gun control and not an outright ban. "Clearly banning guns does reduce the amount of gun related homicides that occur in the country."But even you said that they didnt ban guns and only that they 'almost' did... Plus ive already provided examples of countries that have banned guns that still are ravaged with chaos, instability, or tyranny which you simply chose to ignore..... "According to the statistics quoted by the con in 2010 over 8,500 deaths were caused by guns. This means that if guns were banned in American 8,500 lives would have been saved in 2010. Surely this is the perfect example of gun bans making it harder for criminals to harm civilians."8,500 saved in a population of over 300,000,000 = less than 0.002%.... Not really much of an impact. Plus some of the murderers who killed those 8500 people could easily have used another kind of weapon to kill the person they killed such as an axe, a hammer, poison, a car, a rock, a sledgehammer, a knife, etc..... People will find ways to kill other people and banning guns will only save a fraction of victims. And a fraction of 0.002% is enough to show how little of an impact such a drastic measure would have on the US. "Is it acceptable to shoot a person who is intruding in your house?" Yeah, because theyre breaking and entering.... "If so than I am I allowed to shoot someone who comes over for tea but than refuses to leave when I ask them"Now youre just resorting to semantics to dance around the argument. People have the right to defend themselves and ridiculing the act of self defense doesnt make that statement any less true. "So why is it acceptable for someone to shoot an intruder?"Ask anyone who has ever been kidnapped, held hostage, robbed, or killed by a stranger when they wee in their home and im sure they'll have a few reasons on why its acceptable to shoot someone who may be breaking into your house to kill, rape, or steal from you. "Statistically if you are a women and you are shot by a man, it is 3 times more likely that the man who shot you was your husband or intimate acquaintances of yours than someone you didn't know."And if you banned guns then there is no reason to claim that at least some of those same men would not resort to another weapon to kill..... "In a country where guns are banned that gun would never have even been brought into the equation."Seriously, do you know what a knife is? Or any blunt object for that matter? Men when infuriated can kill women with just about anything you can imagine so banning guns wont end spousal murder, it would only put a dent in it. "However, there has been a massive increase in bow hunters in the past few years because of the extra challenge it provides. Also since most people buy their meat from the shops, hunting isn't really a major necessity these days."Jesus, more semantical arguments? People dont hunt animals for food these days, they hunt for sport, and your other argument that "they can use bows and arrows instead" isnt an argument, its just an excuse. "Now all of a sudden there are more bad guys than good guys, but everyone is still claiming that they only want guns for protection"So since good guys with guns might become bad guys with guns, this means all guns should be banned? By that logic we should also ban knives, bows and arrows, and fists themselves since a good guy with fists can turn into a bad guy with fists....."Homicide rates increased because people who owned handguns that never left the house, suddenly came out in silent protest against the new ban by actually carrying their gun around in the streets. This lead to more confrontations therefore more gun related deaths. All the ban needs is a bit more time for it to sink into the residents."There are absolutely no sources that exist anywhere in the world indicating that this statement is even close to being true.... "Police officers need to step up their game because now they can remove the handguns and charge their owners even before any shots are fired."Seriously, youre arguments dont even make sense anymore. Police officers cant arrest gun owners for a crime they didnt do, and claiming that they should kills reason and intellect itself...."Yes I do agree that the second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms, but I think it is only fair for them to own the guns that the writers of the second amendment assumed that everyone would have, that is of course muskets and other guns from 1791."The founding Fathers have been dead for close to 200 years, NOBODY knows what they were assuming when they wrote the Second Amendment, and using your assumption of someone elses assumption as your main reason for being against guns is no evidence at all. I can sit here all day and assume that the founding fathers believed that all citizens should have a right to any form of self defense and use that as my argument for the second amendment, and that argument would have just as much weight as yours......==========================================================================Summary:1) Banning guns does not make a country stable in all cases such as East Timor. 2) Pro's own arguments show that you dont even have to ban all guns to achieve stability (England) which defeats her own resolution that we should ban all guns to be stable since you dont even have to ban all guns in order to lower gun deaths, you just have to control them right.3) Only .002% of the population dies from gun-related incidents, which means if a gun ban was implemented then only a fraction of .002% of people would even be saved. 4) Its possible to kill somebody without using a gun, and criminals have killed others for thousands of years before guns were ever invented, so theres no logical way to conclude that banning guns will foil these same criminals5) People have the right to defend themselves, and just because pro doesnt believe people should have that right it doesnt mean that this reason for being against a gun ban can be dismissed....6) Pro completely dropped the argument that it would be impossible for the government to collect all the guns once a ban was implemented7) Pro completely dropped the argument that conceal carry laws have proven to be more effective in stopping crime then a gun ban. 8) Pro simply danced around the argument that existing gun bans have been proven to not be effective and resorted to semantics to explain why they are but that current ones havent worked. 9) Pro completely dropped the argument that guns are very effective in being used for self defense.