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

No if the police were to do their jobs in situational crime prevention properly then civilians would be protected from all forms in all arenas of crimeThis statement reflects a total disconnect from reality. Under what conditions do you imagine Police can stop a mugger who picks targets of opportunity who are chosen at random? How should police prevent a domestic violence within the privacy of one’s home? The list of situations wherein your expectations are fanciful is endless.you say it's not the job of the police to "protect you", but forgive me if i'm wrong but the official motto of the US police academy is "To Protect and to Serve"No it’s not the official motto. It was a motto of the LAPD and it became popular nationwide. The meaning of the motto is certainly open to interpretation. Nonetheless, police will strive to protect those around them and those nearby, but there’s not a cop in every livingroom. There’s not a cop in every facet of everyone’s life. The protection of your life is your responsibility, the police will assist.There is no “US Police Academy”. Our various states have varying laws. if they are almost always too far away then, again, they aren't doing their jobs properlyHow would you propose this problem of space and time be resolved? How can we make police more omnipresent?I never said to take away weapons from all the population only those in urban areasIs a city dweller less trustworthy with a legal firearm than a country dweller? This variation in your opinion based on the urban-ness of a population seems to be based on the need for police omnipresence and the notion that a lack of police omnipresence is a police failure.you COMPLETELY FORGET the fact that the police wont just stop when they get all the legal registered guns, they'll go after the illegal guns and gun rings more than anything elseYou COMPLETELY FORGET the fact that the police CURRENTLY go after illegal guns and gun rings. As if this task was a complete success, you want to add to the task by requiring cops to take guns from people who otherwise did nothing wrong. If those law abiding citizens remain compliant, then they won’t have guns when the burglar does. You say most shootings don't happen in the hands of legal gun owners, it doesn't matter if they are legal or not the murder is still being carried out via guns therefore they should be prohibited accordinglyApply this line of thinking to knives. Most legal knife owners don’t murder people, but knife murders do still happen. Most licensed drivers do not go nuts and start driving over people, but it does still happen. Most billiards balls and pool sticks are properly used to play a fun bar game, but occasionally they are used to kill people in drunken brawls.The trampoline analogy is a bit stupid as they are toys which have had their health and safety elements removed (side netting) and aren't actual weapons designed originally as a means of waging war.Your inability to grasp the validity of this analogy is a bit stupid. Trampolines are dangerous even with their health and safety elements. Guns also have health and safety elements. As do cars. Responsible use of any of the above results in reduced negative outcomes, though never a reduction to 0 in any case.Original use is irrelevant. Martial arts were originally developed to wage war. A proficient martial artist is quite lethal. Responsible people across the nation use martial as for recreation among other things. Some people use martial arts for crime, sometimes murder (MMA is popular with felons in prison). Should we ban the practice of martial arts? If we did, would we get rid of martial artists? Is it reasonable to say you don’t need martial arts because the cops will protect you? My morality is not off for wanting to take away guns from a relatively stupid modernized populationYours is a fatal conceit. Fortunately we have a system that protects us from your level of stupid within government. Do you think that my presumption of your stupidity is unfounded? Or is it your presumption that is unfounded?