U.S.A. should stop selling firearms and change the gun law. (continued)

"What I mean about the difficulty of smuggling is that if more smugglers are caught, less smuggling would occur. Improving the anti-smuggling programs would ensure that not all, but most of the smugglers get caught. Less succesfull smuggling = less guns in America by smuggling. " While I agree I think the point is being missed. There would still be enough guns getting into the country that it would have a significant impact on crime. Law-abiding citizens would be powerless to defend themselves against the criminals. "Guards has firearms because they are guards. Being a guard means you must guard something by all means possible. If criminals wants to rob a bank, they have to deal with the guards first. However, letting civilians walk in banks with a gun in the holster makes everyone go alert. The civilian with a gun could be a mass murderer or wanting to rob a bank and he could pull a gun and wreak havoc inside a bank. Same in the streets. You may see nice people with firearms with them, but you will never know if someone suddenly walks up to you and shoots you suddenly at the streets. " So somebody who guards property like a bank is allowed to carry a firearm, but a regular citizen is not allowed to defend his/her life and property with one? Sure a "civilian" could be a mass murderer, or more than likely he/she is just putting their work check in the bank. "The soviet invasion on Afghan and Algeria has nothing to do with the population armed with firearms. Soviet has special force units like Spetsnaz and are heavily armed while Algeria has mortar and heavy weapons. No shop in the world sells mortars or rocket launchers. " This has nothing to do with the argument I'm making. These two countries successfully beat off invasions and occupations by insurgency, which previously you said couldn't happen because of "tanks, planes, and battleships". "We SHOULD be looking at the gun crime, since the amount of crimes involved are increasing every year! The cause of the increase is of course by the fact that you can buy guns from the shop. Since we all know that guns are far more dangerous then knifes," This doesn't really mean anything, as guns used by criminals can be purchased illegally. "And here comes by returning argument. Police are here to fight crimes so its socially accepted that they have guns. The police risk themself to save others so why do you want to forbid them from using a gun? For example a hostage situation where a thug is armed with a knife with a hostage, you could just shoot the thug from afar. Also by giving other citizens guns, like I said can raise alert since a citizen could be a criminal wanting to kill someone and a hostage situation with a thug armed with a firearm is EVEN more dangerous. " And a responsible citizen could shoot that knife-wielding hostage taker himself. But I guess this is a matter of the lesser evil. It would be nice if nobody BUT the police had guns, but since smuggling occurs, it is better to allow the law-abiding citizen to protect him/herself. "Anyone can start a school shooting, even a teacher. If a teacher comes in with a gun in the classroom, do you think all students in the classroom would relax? The teacher could draw the pistol and shoot everyone at every moment. But firearms aren't allowed in school now and the school shooting could be prevented just by having the school check more frequently on firearms. " True, but students trust their teachers and so does the school/parents. And no school is going to be able find all firearms and seize them. There is a movement in the USA to allow both teachers and students to carry guns on campus. "Also there are those occassions where childrens are playing with a gun because they don't know what it is and end up killing somebody with it. " This is an example of unrepsonsible parents not properly securing their firearms. It is unfortunate, but it is no reason to punish the majority of responsible gun owners. My opponent has brought up some interesting points. Unfortunately they seem to be based on emotion and his view of how the world should work and not how it actually does. My opponent states that if there are no guns for sale there is no reason for citizens to carry them. This is true, but he ignores the problem of smuggling and the fact that criminals would be able to get them anyway. My opponent failed to refute my argument that gun rights help to defend the people against government tyranny. My opponent brought up the point that a citizen can defend him/herself with non-lethal weapons. While I agree, I have shown these are not as effective as firearms. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and comment on English. Despite English not being his primary language, I had no problems understanding it.