Gun control is a stupid idea

Gun control is not a stupid idea.Let's have a look at Germany.I will rely on this site as a source: http://www.gunpolicy.org...I will open my argument with this particular statistic:http://www.gunpolicy.org...The statistic shows that in Germany and the United Kingdom, where gun control is in effect and rather strict, the number of deaths involving the use of a gun is significantly less than in the United States Of America, where states like Colorado allow to carry guns concealed on campus, for example ( http://www.theguardian.com... ).Gun deaths in Colorado per 100000 inhabitants are ten times higher than in Germany: http://www.gunpolicy.org...Over the last decades, gun incidents in Germany have decreased substantially:http://www.gunpolicy.org...Whereas in the US of A:http://www.gunpolicy.org...As you can clearly see, the numbers have risen. They have decreased a little over the last years, with stricter gun control slowly taking effect.This effectively shows that gun control works.Now for my opponents arguments:"Everyone advocating gun control forgets one thing."I am advocating gun control, and I did not forget that."What would stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns and using it on an armless public?"The police, mainly. It's their job."It's stupid and it would happen."I agree that some criminals would see profit in smuggling guns. Yet, statistics still prove my opponent wrong. It is true that over the last decade the UK have seen a drastic increase in gun related crimes, yet the death rate is still significantly lower than in the USA:http://www.gunpolicy.org...This means that gun control does indeed help. Does it change human nature and magically prevent all crime?No, of course not.Does it diminish crime, though? Apparently, according to the statistics."The vast, vast majority of gun owners use them appropriately and responsibly."And how is that relevant? Gun control does not exclude responsible people from gun possession. In Germany, people obtain a permit and are then, under certain circumstances, even allowed to carry them visibly in public.From: http://www.gunpolicy.org..."Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Germany are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, personal protection (in exceptional circumstances), security""An applicant for a firearm licence in Germany must pass a background check which considers criminal and mental records""In Germany, an understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required for a firearm licence"And still: "The regulation of guns in Germany is categorised as restrictive"So, the guns will not be taken from those who are responsible under even restrictive gun control. My opponent obviously does not understand gun control.The implications on the good citizens are this: be responsible, lock your guns away as required by the law, and cover up your pool.Nobody should die through carelessness, be it through an insufficiently secured pool or an insufficiently secured gun.I see no harm in that message.On a side note: I am not a US denizen, so there's one thing I never understood. The US allow the right to bear arms. And while firearms existed in the day of the founders, why does it not say "firearms"? Does this not mean that the government is free to decide which kind of arms are allowed and which not? I do not see any law forbidding adults arming themselves with clubs, knives and swords. So, here's my question: how is the right to bear arms affected by gun control? People are still allowed to bear arms, but not any kind. I mean, my opponent most certainly does not include nuclear arms in the "right to bear arms"? So, why the fixation on firearms?