Gun Control should be administered

Here are my rebuttals for your arguments: 1. "But would a ban of guns lead to a world without weapons? Most probably not!" Sure, banning guns does not equal banning all weapons. But, as you said earlier, 68% of murders were carried out by guns in the US in 2011. If there were no guns in the hands of those killers, the 68% of murder victims would still be alive. That is more than the majority. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill or cause heavy damage, whether intentionally or not. But, for another weapon, such as a knife, there are other uses. Knives are used as cutlery and tools to aid cooking, not solely as a weapon. You did admit that it is easier to kill a person with a gun than without. So, if the murderer did not own a gun, he or she would not be able to kill so easily, therefore perhaps saving a life(s). 2. "...they should not prevent the citizens from protecting themselves." True, everyone has the right to protect themselves. But it is not necessary to use a gun. What about a stun gun? It could serve the purpose and have a lower chance of killing. A criminal is a criminal, but nevertheless still a life. Citizens want guns to protect themselves because many people out on the street own guns. If no citizen owns a gun, that reason would not exist and it would be harder to kill or rob. (refer to argument 1) 3. " A ban of guns is likely to lead to a higher imbalance in the distribution of guns between those who are possessing it for offensive purposes and those who are possessing it for defensive purposes," Well, a "ban on guns" means that guns should not be allowed, except perhaps for people who are exceptions, for example on-duty policemen. That way, no citizen would own a gun and therefore cannot own it for offensive purposes. No one would be put at a disadvantage as both sides do not have guns. Here are my arguments: 1. Guns lead to a higher crime rate. When guns are so easily bought, people can easily own them. Let's consider this scenario: Mark, a teenage boy, gets frustrated with his mother. He soon gets very angry, and remembers that there are guns in the house. So, he takes a gun and shoots his parents as well as his younger siblings. Well, this case is true. Nehemiah Griego was "Mark". He used the gun because he was angry and it was convenient. Imagine a man in debt and also owning a gun. Here's what happens: He decides to rob a supermarket. So he drives there, gets in and points the gun at someone at the register. The person at the register attempts to push the alarm button, and out of panic, he shoots him/her. The man robbed the bank because he owned a gun and he thought it would be easy. If he didn't own a gun, none of this would have happened as he would have been discouraged. 2. It is not really that easy to defend yourself with a gun Well, if you are a FBI or CIA officer this obviously doesn't apply to you as you have been trained. But untrained civilians with guns are the majority. So here's a scenario: Some people are robbing a bank. They have guns. You see them about to shoot a person and you reach for your gun. But before you can pull it out, a guy with a gun sees you and shoots you. Also consider this. Sometimes such incidents such as muggings occur in places with no people. The bad guy has his gun pointed at you and you have to defend yourself. You don't know anything's going to happen until the gun is pointed at you. You reach for your gun---and at that instant he shoots you. Which one is quicker, the bad guy pulling the trigger or you putting your hand into the holster, drawing out the gun, aiming it and then finally pulling the trigger? 3. Guns are very dangerous weapons Unlike other weapons, such as knives (as mentioned in rebuttal 1), guns only have one purpose. That is to kill (or cause heavy damage) whether intentionally or not. Let's think about this. The weapon available is a blunt object, such as a hammer from a toolbox. Well, hammers have other uses. But when used as a weapon, it is not as dangerous as a gun. Even a child could kill with a gun. But then, a twelve year old would not be able to use a hammer to attack people while causing the same amount of damage that would be inflicted by a gun. The news article below mentions a ten year old killing his mother with a gun. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a knife or hammer. ( please see http://www.indianasnewscenter.com...) Guns can be used long range, while blunt objects such as a hammer can not. True, you could throw it, but the victim could defend himself better than when struck by a bullet. To kill a person with a hammer, even with strikes to the head, it would take over ten strikes. It took thirteen stab wounds to kill John Evans ( refer to: http://www.todaystmj4.com... ). In the process of the attack the victim can easily defend himself with either his hands or something around the house. Even a book or a chair would work for a hammer and a chopping board or even a laptop for a knife. It is also hard to commit suicide without a gun. If you used a hammer, you would just knock yourself out. Someone would rescue you and you would fail to kill yourself as you are unconscious.