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

I'm well aware of what Wikipedia says regarding guns and gun ownershipThat’s nice. They were cited in support of my position. Your argument would be served by a rebuttal.As I've said before legal gun ownership in most countries is down to people owning guns for hunting and sports , most countries do in fact ban the carrying of hand guns a fact you neatly sidestepThis is not a sidestep. This debate concerns the banning of firearms, something you said most countries do, though in fact they don’t. Yes it is a question of whether guns are beneficial for society or if they are not ; the sugar milk chocolate defence is ludicrous and I think you know thatNo it isn’t. The debate title is literally “Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?”. The benefit, or lack thereof, in introducing guns to society is moot. Guns are already here. The question is should they be banned. You probably don’t know this, but failing to address legitimate opposition to your view actually hurts your argument. I’ll refer back to this often, I think.Ah so culture is the problem as guns are not the source of the trouble , really? So what about the accidental deaths , suicides , or children getting their hands on guns ?Indeed, the majority of gun deaths are from suicide rather than homicide. Suicide is most certainly not a gun issue as there are so many easy ways to accomplish it with guns being only one among them. As for the hazard to children, I think we ought to focus on the real dangers within the home, swimming pools. Personal swimming pools in the home kill more children than do personal firearms.As for culture, if you compare homicide rates of various states, you will find that some have high rates with high levels of gun regulations, while others have relatively low rates with with relatively high levels of regulation. Conversely you will find some states with low homicide rates and low level regulation, and some with high homicide rates and low level regulation. This is because these rates are not correlated at all to gun ownership. https://www.google.com/search?q=homicide+rate+by+state&biw=1536&bih=735&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBzd uwprRAhUF2yYKHZCBB14QAUIBigB#imgrc=xRgKwD1RUY-iBM:You're incorrect yet again legal gun ownership,in America is indeed responsible for a fair amount of deaths through accident , suicide and children accidentally getting their hands on gunsLegal gun ownership is responsible for a certain amount of accidental death of children, pools are responsible for more. Legal gun ownership is the most popular method of suicide, but that doesn’t explain why the suicide rate itself is so high. I you remove guns as an option, suicidal people will resort to another option. And the U.S. would still have higher than normal suicide rates.Rather strange assessment you have of the Australian model please tell me how the police took guns back at gunpoint if they didn't know who held guns ? As far as I know people holding guns illegally do not broadcast this information to the policeRight, so when the cops find out that someone has a gun illegally, they go and get it. They don’t go unarmed when they do so. “All major police forces in Europe, as well as the US, Canada and Australia routinelycarry firearms, says Prof Peter Waddington. The exceptions are Britain, the Irish Republic, and New Zealand. In Norway officers carry arms in their cars but not on their person, he says.”http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19641398 Your last point proves what ? I think you may be right to leave it thereI thought you might be able to read a table, I may have been wrong. You talked about the supposed American problem of mass shootings. I provided a table that puts the US at 6th, with the 5 countries ahead of it all being countries with restrictive gun laws and Norway dwarfing all others with its rampage shooter problem. You are likely correct in not attempting to refute my points, but again, it doesn’t help your argument.