Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms.

"Everyone should have the right to keep and bear firearms. " This isn't a new resolution. The right to keep and bear arms have been interpreted with the right to keep and bear guns. 1. Making guns illegal will not significantly reduce violence or injury. Making guns illegal will significantly reduce violence and injury caused by guns. Guns make killing much easier than any other potentially lethal object available to the American public. Knife crimes may increase, but overall the total violence and injury will decrease. Killing a 300 pound full grown man with a knife, it would likely be difficult given the large imbalance of physical strength and we would have to be in close proximity of each other. If I wanted to take out as many people as possible such as in a high school, a firearm would be far more concealable, effective and time efficient compared to any other legally obtainable weapon or object. People may kill people, but the difficulty varies with the type of weapon owned. Source: . http://www.politicalforum.com... The law enforcement may have a gun. When I'm against the resolution, I meant that guns should be restricted to the military, government, and law enforcement. Civilians will not be able to own guns. Gun laws may have historically increased crime. However, the "mixed quality of the evidence on the efficacy of gun control, along with its varying interpretations, means that lawmakers should be allowed to assess it for themselves to set reasonable gun control policies. " Lawmakers want to decrease crime and doing nothing won't help the gun violence decrease by itself. Source: . http://www.nytimes.com... "Strategies to reduce the number of guns in private hands that include mandating a maximum one-gun-per-person rule. " This is only a proposal and may not be in effect. However these other proposals (which I already stated before) include: # A ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than government officials and target shooters who would be forced to store their weapons at shooting ranges; # Worldwide licensing of firearms registered in a vast U. N. computer bank Democracies like Japan have very strict laws against citizens owning firearms and don't reveal totalitarian tendencies. There are several countries that have had gun control in place for many years—the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada for example—that are not totalitarian governments. U. S. small arms are briskly — and illegally — sold all over the world. However, "in the last 10 years, the international community succeeded in establishing a global treaty against antipersonnel landmines and a global ban on cluster bombs — weapons of indiscriminate effect that can leave behind thousands of unexploded "bomblets" that pose a threat to military personnel and civilians alike. " Therefore, if the world can ban landmines and cluster bombs, they should be able to ban guns. Shouldn't a global treaty against guns be next? Source: . http://www.fpif.org... "Any civilian can choose to be a criminal. They would have access to such self defense weapons, and so be able to use them violently. " What kills 30 people faster and easier, a taser or a gun? "People dying from gun accidents is also void. " It is more gun violence than gun accidents that are causing all these deaths due to people abusing guns to kill people. The statistics basically states that the United States have the right to keep and bear arms and therefore, the United States have more cases of gun violence that any other industrialized nation. I didn't say that the reason Japan had low crime rate was because of the gun ban. I specifically stated: Gun laws of Japan are a part of an authoritarian philosophy of government that is fundamentally at odds with America's traditions of liberty. You will notice that Japan has very low crime rate and people will not resort to tyranny. "Self defense weapons would also have a commercial interest, yes, but it would not be as significant. " It will become significant once guns are banned, wouldn't you agree? "Deer starve when they aren't hunted. " Isn't that statement a contradiction? Hunting does not help the environment, because they have been the cause of extinction of various animals and made many species endangered: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Tasers could also be used to hunt deer as well as crossbow. Crossbow and tasers aren't more efficient on killing than a gun. Guns can kill more easily than other weapons. If we ban them globally, the gun violence will be expected to sharply drop.