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

"I never ever stated that guns should be banned from the world, i simply show you that USA would be better off without the selling of firearms." 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. "And even so, how easy do you think smuggling is? Every border has a check post or something whatever its called and at airports, theres the customs who WOULD check your luggage for anything suspicious like firearms, explosives etc" 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. "Also, the government cannot be reckless and order all the people who are against him to be executed. It attracts alot of attention and suspicion from neightbour lands and just like Hitler, who puts the blame on jews and attacked Poland. You could defend yourself from such tyranny, but you will not survive. You will be better off by just following the other people." 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. " We don't want your opinion, but even so, if you saw someone with an AK for example, doesn't that make YOU feel threatened? Everyone wants to safely walk around the streets without the sight of firearms, but you see people around with pistols and shotgun. NO ONE wants that." 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. "You gotta be kidding me, no one here would be dumb enough to rob a bank on his own. But theres a possibility of an one man robbery armed with an AK in shops. Even so, you still are better off without the gun. No one would pull a pistol while under surveillance of the robber since it will end up with you getting shot." 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. "You are absolutely right about this, but ending the robbery with a shootout will be bad for the people not involved like your children." 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. "Also, what i mean about the target practice is, you want to assassinate someone, but have no experience with a sniper rifle. Of course the shooting range offers you the chance to experience with the sniper rifle. Another example is if you got yourself a heavy firearm that you have no experience with, you could just go to the shooting range and do it like you did with the sniper rifle. Being experienced in firearm is much better for the criminals. We civilians has no need to be on a shooting range since we will NEVER use a gun for a purpose other then killing." 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. "This is a rather unrelated argument, but for the sake of argue my argument comes that the Jews already think its over. The jews sees Hitler as an Anti Christ and thought the end was near. And even if they are armed with weapons, they are no match for the trained Wehrmacht." 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. "Once again, you are absolutely right, but the fact if a shootout breaks out, its bad for both shooters and the innocent bystanders. Also, if you even managed to kill a soldier coming for you, you WILL be hunted. And the reaction of the Soviet Union will be more intense." " 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. "I tell you again, no guns sold = less crimes." Not true. Australian crime is up. [1] So is UK crime. [2] "What you wanna do then? Catch the mugger yourself? Or shoot him in the head if you see him again? The police does his job so he will be caught." 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. "And here comes my same argument. At night, if 3 man are coming at you armed too and already has a pistol drawed on you because it is planned, do YOU think you had the time to draw a gun and shoot back? No, I answer. Now lets look at the other way. If you see 3 man coming unarmed, attempting to rape you (or rob, unless its gay rape :P) and you have a taser and a pepperspray, you could just fight back by using a pepperspray in the eyes or shoot them with a taser. If the robber or raper is armed with by example a baseball bat or a knife, you could just still use the pepperspray or taser on him. Don't have one? Thats your problem." 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. "Yes, crime does still exist, but it will be harder for criminals to pull of a crime and even harder if he meets the cops armed. Firearms may work both for civilians and criminals, but criminals will pull off their crimes easier." If firearms are outlawed, why do the police need guns? Look at the UK, where only special units have guns. "You actually contradicted yourself here. Firearms are NOT allowed in school and yet, shootout appears in schools and the number of shootouts starts to increase every year. Such shootouts will be lessened by ALOT if no guns are even sold. (Remember my argument about the Virginia Tech Massacre)" 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. SOURCES: 1: http://www.wnd.com... 2:http://reason.com... 3:http://www.telegraph.co.uk...