Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

"Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialized world" Oh really, what about Russia and Brazil, they both have stricter gun control laws http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/011613-640869-more-guns-means-less-crime.htm?p=full You aren't keeping a gun in case something goes wrong. You are keeping a gun to fight the government.Yes, I am keeping a gun in case something goes wrong, being open to the fact that government can become dangerous does not mean I am plotting a rebellion. We keep guns not so we can run around shooting criminals and brutal police officers, we keep them in case we have to do with violent criminals and oppressive governments. Gun owner =/= rebelAnd of course governments can become dangerous, that's why we keep a strong democracy. You think guns protect that you're insane.We don't have a democracy we have republic, a democracy would be terrible. Although Republics are safer than other forms of government, again I encourage you to have some knowledge of history, republics have been over thrown or taken over. As Mao Zedong says "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." just so happened that his regime was the only one with guns, look how that turned out.f there was a vote. And the majority said they wanted to ban guns. What would you think then?The same thing I thought when the majority was dumb enough to give Bush and Obama two terms, its a stupid idea. The majority at times (in most cases) can be really dumb and mislead, that is why we have a constitution, to protect people from politicians abusing power (ex: Taking away freedom of speech and press)And using a stat on murder has nothing to do with gun crime. A kid who finds his dads gun and kills himself isn't a murder.Its suicide, you don't need a gun to kill yourself, drink bleach, jump of a bridge, take 60 triple C's, crash your car, run onto a high way, slit your throat with a knife, run out onto a frozen lake etc.The last part of you argument makes it sound like you think the government is targeting you specifically. I wish I had the list to out people like you on. I don't get the logic.I never said or acted like they were targeting me specifically, maybe you should re-read my argument. The government is attacking us but they are doing it politely without anyone noticing? What are you talking about.You don't seem to get it, now please, instead of just trying to twist this into me being paranoid, actually read what I say:When a government is fighting a civil war it is in their best interest to end it quickly and with little damage. Collateral damage would destroy industry and infrastructure, anyone accidental killed in the collateral damage will server as something for other people to rally around. It works the same way in Afghanistan, they use a drone to kill one "terrorist" they injure/kill a kid that was near the explosion, now his parents and friends will most likely take up arms. Are you starting to understand? Collateral damage works against them, it takes out 1 threat but at the same time has a large potential to create more (especially in a urban area) and at the same time it is damaging their own infrastructure and industry. Its not about being polite, its about fighting smart, using drones would not be a good move.