Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

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. 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 needed. We are dealing with hypothetical arguments on a hypothetical matter, or are you so atheistic in your thought that your are a nihilist and will not accept hypotheticals? (serious question)I get your point, I was under the impression that the motto had been internalized by the institution regardless of states and their own judicial system. As we live in a state of governance and not nature (regardless of whether you support Hobbes or Locke) 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? And if the protection of your life in your sole responsibility then social cohesion itself starts to break down (as you feel then no obligation to protect others thus bringing a Darwinian aspect back into society) and participation within society reduces, Anomie rises as a result and so does crime. Why would you even bring up omnipresence (albeit sarcastically), is the answer so hidden. 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 activity.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 latter. 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 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 off, there is a higher density of officers per square km in urban areas so (assuming they do their jobs and the SCP works) you would be safe from public crime, so for what reason then would you need a hand gun or sniper rifle, recreation? If so then surely designated ranges would be the right way to go rather than owning a firearm.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 confiscated. The main constitutional reason (that I'm aware of) to own a gun is due to the second amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms", the right to own a firearm is so that you can fight an oppressive state, however seeing as the American government is now (Supposedly) geared towards eradicating any form of oligarchy, so why is there a need for an armed militia which in the digital age couldn't do a thing to prevent modern tyranny.If you had used the analogy of Martial Arts originally then I wouldn't have called it stupid, however the analogy is still flawed as you attempt to compare an item originally created to kill with a series of limb movement originally created to kill. 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 behaviorism. Original use is far from irrelevant, especially when the item or behavior has not developed away from it.To say that the American political system protects you from my "Level of stupid" (without knowing a single thing about my intelligence, if I have any, morality) is then an unfounded presumption as the two final presidential candidates were Trump and Hilary, quite clearly a testament to the stupidity of the American system. 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 you, or do you believe you are a paragon of intelligence because you've watched a load of Ben Shapiro videos? (P.s before you go down that rout I called your trampoline analogy stupid not you).