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

" I ask again, if no one in the world has guns, why the heck do you even need a gun to protect yourself? Also, to be able to carry guns around in the public doesn't instantly mean that its socially accepted if the government says so. Wouldn't YOU find it odd that a 6 year old is walking around with an AK?" The debate isn't about whether or not guns should be banned from the world, the debate is about whether or not the USA should stop selling guns and change the law to make them illegal. Even assuming the USA banned all guns and stopped producing them, criminals could smuggle them in from other nations. Then the citizen would still need guns to defend himself and to ward off government tyranny. I personally would find it odd that a six year has a AK. I would not at all find it odd that a grown man or women would walk around with one. "Why do the citizens need a gun for this then? Most of the crimes (bank robbery example) doesn't even target citizens. If you were as a citizen to pull out a gun while 3 armed robberies with automatic weapons are in front of you, wouldn't it make them shoot you?You could have gotten away by just cowering down on the ground. Also the fact that almost all citizens has a firearm makes it easier for criminals actually got your hands on one. They could just break in their homes on night and steal their gun for free." Except a lot of crime does directly target the individual, such as mugging and robbery as well as rape, just to name a few. It is true that one could cower during a bank robbery and "get away" and it is up to the gun owner whether or not to do anything in that situation. It would be pretty dumb to take on 3 criminals with automatic weapons, but against one it might not be so dumb. While it 'may' be easier for a criminal to get his hands on a gun since they're legal, they would get them whether or not they were legal. Furthermore, if a criminal broke into your house while you were home and had a gun, that robbery would be over very quickly. There are many ways to secure a firearm if one is not at home, such as trigger locks and other devices. The criminal won't be able to do much with the weapon if the owner has the key. "The fact that you could practice with your gun, means you could actually train yourself in using the gun to prepare for a crime in case a shootout breaks out." Yes, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. "Nazi Germany rised in power because of the huge amount of people who are workless and the high desire of food. The Nazi pinned those problems on the Jews and everybody believed him (Even you would've believed him at that time), no guns needed right?" This is a rather unabashed assertion. At any rate, if the Jews had been armed they would have had better means to resist against being a target of discrimination and genocide. Hitler passed laws to ban Jews from gun ownership "The Soviet Union tried to rebuild the economy and industrialize Russia. Why do you even need guns to protect from such ideas? At this time, if weird ideas comes from those groups like banning Jews from the country or something, there will always be democracy." The USSR also killed millions of Ukrainians in government-created famine and had widespread civil rights violations against numerous groups of society. Communism (Or at least that used in the USSR) is authoritarian and tyrannical. Its "citizens" had no means to resist against their security appretues primarily because they had no guns. "I agree, the police aren't supermans, but with as big as America there SHOULD be alot of polices around." Trust me, there are a lot around and they are very militarized. Regardless, they still cannot be magically at every crime and stop it. "Also by owning a firearm, you are protected, BUT don't forget that the rapist or mugger can arm himself too with a firearm. Would you rather lose your life or just get mugged and let the police track the suspect down?" That is for the individual to decide. One would certainly be within your rights to. And you're assuming the police will catch the mugger. "Would there be such a shootout if no guns are sold? No, which I answer." Let's assume for the sake of argument guns are outlawed and the millions of guns that are in America are all turned into the authorities. How would a person defend themselves? To use a specific example, let's say a women is walking home from work and is assaulted by three young and strong men. What is she supposed to do? While she could use pepper spray, a taser, or a rape whistle, some of these will only work against one attacker and not the rest. If she had a .38 special, all three men could be killed in a much shorter period of time and she would be safe. This can easily be extended to a male walking home for work and being assaulted by a mugger wielding a baseball bat or other improvised weapon. Without a gun, he'd be hopeless against the stronger man who is armed. A gun evens those odds considerably. Guns allow people who wouldn't otherwise be able to protect themselves physically normally to do so. Even in your Utopian world where no guns exist at all, other weapons and crime would exist. Do we really want to go back to the time were the strongest man usually got his way? "You are completely right that the worst mass shooting appears in places where guns are allowed. But if you don't sell those guns, the mass shooting will lessen by alot." I actually made a typo. I meant to say the worst atrocities are committed in areas (such as schools) where guns are strictly prohibited.