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

"You said "If no-one in the world has guns". Obviously if nobody in the world has guns that would be nice. But even if guns were outlawed in the USA, other nations would still produce them." Yes, you are completely right about the fact that other nations will produce guns. But, America is the only country that sells firearms to citizens. "I'm not saying smuggling is easy. But that's not the point. Smuggling would still occur, and guns would still be brought into the country. Drugs are illegal here, but they still get into the country, as well as many other illegal substances and items. There is no way for customs to stop 100% of the smuggling." The diffculty of smuggling could end with the smuggler in jail. Like I said, the difficulty DOES matter and if America keep up with the anti smuggling operations, less guns will be smuggled in america and less people will be even need a gun to protect yourself. "History says differently. Obviously no government comes out openly and says they're going to genocide an entire group of people but it happens all the time, again in nations with gun control." You think something like that would go unnoticed by the neightbour lands? Do you really think that if theres a civil war in a country, it would go unnoticed? I don't know where you got the source, but nothing in the world went unnoticed. "You're telling me you don't want my opinion but this is clearly also your opinion. I would have no issue with people walking around armed, as would alot of other people." THAT IS NOT MY OPINION, it is a fact that everyone in the world fears firearms. Ask anyone and they most of them will reply about the danger of guns. "I was using bank robbery as an example and there are some cases where one person does rob a bank. The analogy applies to plenty of other crimes. Obviously a person wouldn't pull out a firearm while being watched by the robber but if the chance arose then somebody with one may be able to stop the crime." I came across the fact that firearms are NOT allowed in banks, so if firearms are not allowed in banks, why do a civilian need one then if a guard or a police offer is allowed to carry one inside the bank? Allowing people walk around with guns with them, do you think the employees of shops and banks won't be afraid of them all? "And letting the house be robbed with your children is a good ending? (Assuming there is even children involved). It is up to the gun owner to decide in any given situation whether or not the use of force would be appropriate. By outlawing guns completely the gun owner doesn't even have the option." Ok, I guess you are right that when facing an armed robber, you would pulled a gun to defend against this burglar. I can't argue with you about this fact since its a person's natural behavior. But, burglars armed with firearms are incredibly rare in nations where guns are not sold. Not involving the firearm would be a better option. "Practicing at a shooting range benefits the responsible gun owner just as much if not more than a criminal. Sure a criminal could practice for an 'assassination' but a citizen could also practice with a handgun in order to prevent being mugged while walking home from work. Also plenty of people use guns for a hobby and recreational shooting without ever intending to actually use one to kill people with." Yes you can use the shooting range as hobby, and its not wrong either. But, the fact that even criminals could use such shooting range is bad for the victims. I guess the shooting range works for civilians and criminals both if guns are involved. "This argument is not unrelated at all. Gun ownership is an essential defense against tyrannical governments. If guns were outlawed people would loose the means to defend themselves. Furthermore there is a style of warfare which called the insurgency, would be the kind used had the Jews been armed. Insurgencies have been highly successful in the past and have defeated even well-trained armies with superior numbers. It is certainly better than sitting back and allowing one's race to be exterminated." But here comes my answer, if you arm the jews with firearms, do you even think they would fight back? They already think its over for them, seeing Hitler as the Anti Christ. And also, even armed with weapons, they are stil NO match for the Wehrmacht. They had access to tanks, battleships and airplanes. This applies to all countries should the civilians wage war against his own government. "It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees". It doesn't have to be just one person resisting. Join with like-minded individuals and the ability to resist becomes even greater. But with gun ownership banned, this is not even an option." Like I said, you think you could resist your government by arming yourself with a gun and joining a resistance group if a tank comes mowing over you, a carpet bomb comes or a navy bombardment has been ordered? No. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees will apply better on soldiers helping for the good cause. "Not true. Australian crime is up. [1] So is UK crime. [2]" Australia and UK amount of gun involved crimes are nowhere near the one at USA. The amount of crimes of the whole world is the same as the crimes of USA x5 which is ALOT considering how many countries there are. You stated that Australian and UK crime has been going up. This is not true, it has been actually decreasing there. Australia forbid the selling of guns and UK took even a more drastic measure by not allowing ANYONE to wield a gun, not even the police officers. "I wasn't suggesting either. I was suggesting shooting the mugger when he is trying to rob you. Or standing back and letting him do so- if for some reason there is less of a risk in that. Again, It's up to the gun owner to decide." Yeah, I agree, its human natural behavior after all. "If a gun is already drawn on you it is true that you can't really do much, but that's not always a case. Pepper spray and a taser are non-lethal, knives and baseball bats are. Three strong thugs can overpower a women even if she has these, with a gun they cannot. The UK has serious problems with knives. This just shows that criminals will use lethal weapons to force their will." You're wrong actually. Pepper spray is a strong weapon since it BLINDS the target and I tell you blind = they cannot see you = they cannot rob, rape etc. you. Taser, also a strong weapon can take out even the strongest human in the world as electricity disables your vital muscles and because of that, you are stunned, not being able to move. With so many weapons for her for disposal, she had many options to deal with thugs and flee. "If firearms are outlawed, why do the police need guns? Look at the UK, where only special units have guns." Police officers are here to fight crimes and because of that,they ARE allowed to wield guns. It is a rule that is accepted by almost any countries. And don't just include UK here, ALL special units has guns. "Not really. If guns were allowed on campus then it would be possible for a responsible citizen to end a shootout before it gets worse. That is not possible on a campus now. Even if guns were outlawed, the mass murderer could use other weapons. See, China and its knife attacks. [3] Violence is always going to occur. By outlawing guns power goes to the stronger man." You will agree with me that firearms are far more dangerous then knives. And all mass murderers are using a firearm if they get the chance to use firearms. In China, its hard to get your hands on a gun and they choose melee weapons instead which is better then a firearm. If a firearm was used instead, more deaths would occur. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.w...