Stricter gun control laws would reduce gun violence, both murder accident and suicide

Looking at each of these different countries with great success at gun control what about areas where gun control has not been so successful? The amount of crime in the UK has been steadily declining since 1995, even before they passed their strict gun control laws. Link: http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com.... El Salvador also has some pretty restrictive gun laws according to http://www.gunpolicy.org.... But here:( https://en.wikipedia.org... ) it shows that their gun crimes are still up by a few points from the US. Not just El Salvador but countries like Brazil, Honduras, Mexico. Some of these countries are also, third world countries with many of their officials corrupt. They control the guns it is possible they could also be giving them to criminals or terrorists to propel fear into people. That makes it easier to control their lives. The US is capable of doing this even more so than some countries. They've done it before. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan gave weapons to Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. Later, after discovery of the American involvement, the US got involved more directly invading Iraq and taking control under the guise of ousting a dictator. Link: http://www.nytimes.com... I'm not a conspiracy theorist but from examples like this it's hard not to see that if we go forward with gun control it could be the first step to becoming like the UK, which is pretty much no guns. Which sounds good on paper, but it begs the question what would the American government do with power like this? It's not a risk that I personally am willing to take. It may have worked for the UK but looking at the other statistics from around the world. How can we be sure it will work for the US? To clarify on my earlier comment, the definition of violence does not include the term accident in any way. vi"o"lence G2;vī(ə)ləns/ noun noun: violence behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. synonyms:brutality, brute force, ferocity, savagery, cruelty, sadism, barbarity, brutishness More "violence against women" forcefulness, force, power, strength, might, savagery, ferocity, brutality "the violence of the blow" strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force. "the violence of her own feelings" synonyms:intensity, severity, strength, force, vehemence, power, potency, fervency, ferocity, fury, fire "the violence of his passion" Law the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force. While the incident mentioned in Florida is tragic and sad, it does not constitute as violent according to the definition. Violence is a negative word probably thrown in with accidents to lead people to believe that guns are bad and should be banned. But that hasn't been answered yet. Accidents are accidents. Maybe an alternative would be teaching gun safety instead of removal. The rebuttal my opponent used calling my argument on suicide "deeply flawed" and "misleading." I have no intent on doing either. While true that suicides are more successful with a gun, if a person is truly suicidal, they will seek a way to end their life. It's a very sad reality but are taking away guns really the answer to preventing suicide? Guns are not the cause of suicide but a means to suicide. Instead, why not focus more of our attention on help for those who are suicidal. Suicide can be in relation to many different reasons. Mental illness, abuse, feeling like a failure, drugs, etc. The list goes on as outlined on the website suicide.org. Link for the page I'm referencing: http://www.suicide.org... I would encourage anyone to seek help before seeking an end. If anyone is feeling suicidal, please visit that page for resources on how to help. The example of the prohibition I used is also mentioned as a straw man, which is "a sham argument set up to be defeated." I used this as an example of other things the US government has tried to control in the past. I don't imagine they just outright banned it. It's more likely that they tried to restrict the consumption of alcohol and the consequences that came from it. After a while, they banned it completely. While alcohol is no longer banned it still serves as a good example. The government felt that restriction wasn't enough. It didn't help so they repealed the law. They still kept restrictions in place, but how much has that helped today? According to this page: http://www.madd.org... every day, 27 people die in an drunk driving accident. Now, that may be an approximate but it still stands true to the argument and example. Even if it is illegal, people will not listen and find ways to do what they want anyway. Whether it's guns, alcohol, or even their favorite song they don't want to pay for. My point being, why try repeating mistakes that we've made in the past? Why not focus on something more constructive? For example, if banning guns won't help, lets focus on teaching our children about guns to prevent accidents. Lets get them help when they need it. Let's up our game on violent crimes and let people know they won't be tolerated. Overall, I guess my question is this; Why are we avoiding the real problem? As for the comment made about terrorists, are we really going to listen to a public statement from a confirmed terrorist about our gun laws? It doesn't make sense to listen to a guy who is dead set on destroying America and her western allies. I for one don't want to take the advice of a guy who'd rather kill my family and friends. I can't see how you win a fight by letting you're enemies use propaganda to destroy you. They used it all the time in WW1 and WW2, it makes sense that people would use it in this war.