A complete gun ban in the United States

IneffectivePro says that my analogy for practicality is invalid, because the technology is considered unfeasible. However, this is completely false. Pro's logic is, if it is unfeasible, we should apparently do it anyway. It isn't feasible to leave our solar system, but apparently we should invest billions of dollars to try and do so regardless. He also provides no sources for why the landing was theoretical. Why should we believe him? Therefore, the variable of practicality is a factor that we ought to debate."1. The gun ban is adopted across the United States 2. As gun ownership is now a crime, local law enforcement throughout the country now have the right to access the national registry of gun ownership 3. Local police departments would set areas where guns would be collected and processed, in exchange for complete amnesty for ownership. This phase would last for 6 months 4. After the 6 months have expired, law enforcement would seize weapons from any registered owner who refused to comply at they would be fined for each offense. 5. After another 6 months, any gun found would be seized by law enforcement, and those who broke the law would face jail time 6. Local law enforcement would expand it's patrols in order to guarantee the safety of the citizens"Pro plays the act of a visionary - his plan is completely idealistic... However, in pragmatic reality, the plan would not be effective. This would only work for legally bought weapons. As stated in my opening round: "It is said that 6% of murders are committed with legally acquired guns".Pro makes a bold statement and says that I lied, but provided no evidence for it. was not just 6% of handguns, it was 6% of all guns. He states "3/4 of guns used in mass murders an shootings were legally purchased." If we were to accept this at face value, it would still contribute to an infinitesimally small percentage of homicides a year. How often does one hear about a mass shooting? According to this source, only 900 people have died in mass shootings over the last SEVEN YEARS. Therefore, on average only 128 people die each year to mass shootings. And only 96 are committed with legally bought weapons! Therefore, Pro's contention provides an abysmal point. "and lets say that 30% of guns are then illegally smuggled, which of course is a gross overestimate, we would save over 20,000 people a year!"Where did Pro get theses figures? Illegally bought firearms contribute to 94% of all gun homicides. So, if we were to take the 6% of that would equate to: 594 people since the sandy hook incident. Since the incident happened three years ago, on average, if this plan was initiated, we would save 198 people per year. Well, I don't know about you but I believe the reasons that Pro dropped:"A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. Population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard." (17)A study conducted in 2000 deduced that "U.S. Civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year." (18)Another study deduces "Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year." (19)The last study I will be mentioning is a survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. And it found:• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim""(20)"completely outweigh a saviour of 198 people per year.Pro then attempts to debunk this with referring the Charlie Hebdo shooting, however, this is an appeal to extremes fallacy.ConclusionI have defended all of my arguments, and I have refuted all of my opponents. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. And I wish him good luck in the voting period.Citations (ALL)(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) http://dailycaller.com......(2) http://en.wikipedia.org......(3) http://top5ofanything.com......(4) http://www.reuters.com......(5) http://www.gallup.com......(6) http://www.pbs.org......(7) http://en.wikipedia.org......(8) http://en.wikipedia.org......(9) http://en.wikipedia.org......(10) http://www.firearmsid.com......(11) http://www.bjs.gov......(12) http://extranosalley.com......(13) http://www.pbs.org......(14) https://www.justfacts.com......(15) http://www.fbi.gov......(16) https://www.justfacts.com......(17) https://www.justfacts.com......(18) https://www.justfacts.com......(19) https://www.justfacts.com......(20) https://www.justfacts.com......