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

"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." This is not true. Switzerland sells them to citizens. And they're not the only ones. "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." It is simply a matter of risk versus reward. There will always be a demand for firearms, so they would always be smuggled in. If enough money is offered, smugglers would take the risk. "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." Hitler did not openly come out and say he was going to exterminate the Jews but he did. "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." It is your opinion. There are many many people who do not fear firearms. Unless you can come up with a source that says so, it is your opinion. I'm sure some people ARE afraid of guns, but lots of people do not fear them. "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?" So now private security guards are allowed guns? Why do they as (private citizens) get to carry guns but not normal citizens? Previously you stated that only public officials should be able to acquire them. I understand you're from a culture where things like open-carry simply do not exist. But open-carry is common in the USA and all because somebody has a gun does not mean people fear them or start panicking. And it doesn't really matter if guns are "allowed" in the banks, somehow I doubt a bank robber cares. "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." Its the same with knives or other weapons as well. "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." Why wouldn't they fight back? At any rate, all because a country has battleships, tanks, and planes does not mean that an insurgency is doomed to fail. See the USSR invasion of Afghanistan [2] and the insurgency against the French in Algeria. [3] "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." The Jews had no soldiers to support to help them. There is not always going to be somebody to help. Honestly I would hope that a enemy would use carpet bombing and naval bombardment against an insurgency, they have tenacity to kill innocent civilians and push them over to the insurgency. "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." The point is not if gun related crime went up. Its that overall crime did. This is because citizens can no longer use guns to defend themselves. When somebody decided to mug you, as an example, there is a a cost-benefit ratio to consider. If the mugger has a bat and guns are illegal and he is planning to mug a small women walking, he knows he can most likely succeed without serious bodily harm or death. Even if she has pepper spray, there's not going to be any permanent damage. In a society with guns, there is the same situation. Now the mugger has to take into consideration that the target may have a gun, and that could result in death or serious bodily injury. Even if the mugger has a gun, there is still a good chance of this occurring. Obviously some would take the risk anyway- but the cost-benefit ratio is tilted far better in a society that allows law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. "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." All of which can only take on a single target at once. There's three big thugs. A gun could take all three, pepper spray or a taser could not. "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." But why do they need guns if there are none in society? You've already used this argument against me elsewhere- so what make the police need guns if there are none? "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." And a citizen is powerless to stop it. Now imagine if the teacher had a gun- that would take care of the murderer quickly. Even assuming the murderer had a gun instead of a knife, the teacher could have the chance to end it. SOURCES: [1] http://www.smallarmssurvey.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org...