Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

The institution of the police is heavily based upon the concept of a panopticon in which all areas of society can be monitored, a state of complete surveillance and therefore response would provide coverage for all area's of crime.Since this isn’t at all true, I can only assume that this is how you think it could or should be. Again, this is not how policing works. The closest thing to what you’re describing is N Korea. It’s not a good idea.On the subject of domestic violence preventative techniques such as psychological screening and an overt increase in rate and severity of punishment would drastically decrease DV, obviously you may want to couple this with education on the matter if neededIf you really think this will effectively eliminate domestic violence, why wouldn’t you apply this concept to gun crimes as well?do you not think that an institution which the public pays for, via tax, has the purpose/obligation then of protecting the public from and preventing crime?Police protect members of the public within their sphere of influence. Police prevent crime to the extent that crime prevention is possible. Police are human beings, and their sphere of influence is limited. As such, they cannot be everywhere at once. They can’t even be most places at any given time. This is not because they are not doing their job properly, it’s because they are human and they are few. For this reason, you must take care of yourself. Does your computer have a firewall? Do your doors have locks? Our roads are not safe because cops run traffic enforcement, roads are safe because people obey the laws, though not always. And when people do something wrong on the road, you have a seatbelt to protect yourself. When someone does something wrong to you physically, you have the legal right to physically protect yourself. When someone threatens your life, you have the legal right to stop that threat by any means. A gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen is a seatbelt against the hazard of a lethal criminal. Cops are just people and they usually aren’t right next to you.And if the protection of your life in your sole responsibility…This is a cheap and shallow debate tactic. It is your responsibility to protect yourself. This is not to say that you cannot care about others. It is your responsibility to feed yourself, this doesn’t mean the world will starve.Why would you even bring up omnipresenceThe Panopticon is the illusion of omnipresence. I wasn’t being sarcastic. What you demand of law enforcement necessitates omnipresence at most or the illusion of omnipresence at least.You start a recruitment campaign, you attempt to remove the anti-police perspective introduced by BLM, then you redistribute police assets according to their correct areas based on crime rates and on public perception whilst developing effective ways of reporting potential criminal activityPolice are distributed according to crime rates. There is a concerted effort to remove the anti-police perspective. None of this creates circumstances wherein police can literally protect any given person from crime for a majority, or even minority of the time. Even if there were a cop on every block, most people on that block would not be in the cops sphere of influence without a substantial time lag. During that lag, you must protect yourself. Obviously you could say my argument is flawed, if the police were doing their jobs correctly surely then there would be no crime regardless the presence of guns. Again we are using hypotheticals (i'm not saying that the police will ever to their jobs perfectly but theoretically all crime would be stopped if the police "did their jobs completely and perfectly") however what is more likely in reality, the Police being able to do their job perfectly or the removal of guns from a percentage of the American population, I say the latterThis is an absolute flaw in your so-called logic. If police can prevent all crime, then people can have their guns. Since police cannot prevent all crime, people need to be able to have their guns. There is already an effort to remove guns from a percentage of the population. Felons, among others, are banned from gun ownership. This does not stop them. Laws are merely statements of consequences, not absolute shapers of reality. Thus, banning guns does not eliminate guns, it only creates a set of consequences. If normal responsible people avoid those consequences by obeying the law, abnormal irresponsible people will continue to risk the consequences of breaking the law. As they already do. If the potential for crime was brought down to a threshold that the police could deal with and plan for effectively then crime then crime would be significantly reduced. The prohibition of the use of guns in specific areas would help achieve this.The use of firearms is already 100% prohibited in cities. You can see how that has worked.The city dweller may be even more trustworthy however what are the reasons for a city dweller to use a gun? There are no natural predators that need to be killed or warned offOther people have always been the primary natural predator for people. That’s why violent crime is worse in the city. Reality is the reason cops can’t protect everyone, not poor job performance.When you say that if the law abiding citizens wont have guns to defend themselves against the burglar that does then that disregards the fact that by proxy the burglar with also have their gun confiscatedBurglary has actually been banned. Yet there he is, burglaring. Martial arts have since developed into more behavioral practices, while since their creation guns have been developed to fulfill their purpose to an even greater extent, they have not developed into a relatively safe form of spiritual behaviorismThe avid shooter may disagree with you. Shooting well requires a zen like self-awareness. Shooting on a range is relaxing and works as a form of meditation. Even so, MMA is an effective method for causing severe harm and death. Criminals utilize it. Physical assault is far far more common than gun crime. I am not advocating the banning of MMA, I am pointing out your inconsistency.Please don't be so controlled by ego (Freudian meaning not the common place) as to assume that I am stupid as I don't agree with youPlease refrain from making arrogant requests. I called you stupid because you referred to the population in general as stupid to justify your position of wanting to ban their guns. It is appropriate to meet this kind of conceit in kind. You are part of the “relatively stupid modernized population” who apparently lack the intelligence to legally own a lethal weapon. Your membership within this population means you are too stupid to make that kind of determination for other people. Your flawed logic demonstrates this perfectly. If police can protect you, then you can safely own a gun; if police cannot protect you, then for safety, you should own a gun.I have to wrap this up. I’m going to conceal a pistol on my person and go shopping. Not because I expect trouble, but because my safety and well-being is my responsibility. Also, because I understand the positive externality of my behavior; that everyone around me is safer as a result of my responsible ownership of a firearm.