To argue one side or the other, in terms in single events, is silly. The argument is death, because of the nature of a gun. Rarely is it so one sided. Why do people fixate on one topic? To focus on one issue as the core is illogical.

1) First note, yes, guns can kill people, but ultimately people kill people. Basic logic. This is an argument of purpose and existence. Just because something exists doesn't mean it has purpose, and if an object has purpose it has existence. What is the purpose of the firearm? Many. Yes, killing is one of them, but there are so many others (for example, the enjoyment of shooting large pumpkins...and yes, I do). Equally so, I could argue that as a human, you were created to breed and kill on the whole in order to survive as the fittest, but modern theories and cognition seem to provide a greater degree of purpose to humanity. Of course, most of it is BS.

2) Equating lower crime rates due to the ban of guns is absurd. Japan has a peaceful society because after World War 2, and as terms of their surrender, many impositions were put on them. As such, the country turned inward and began the foundation of modern Japan. Make no mistake, guns or not, the Japanese were not exactly the epitome of peace up until recent times. The idea of self is not priority to the Japanese. Subsequently, this level of stress in Japan has given them the highest suicide rate in the world. Death by gun? probably not. Death by , sure! Key topic here, death.

The UK with it's gun ban has seen a healthy increase in knife violence. From what I also read, gun crimes actually went up as well (yes, the nasty black market). But if you look at most statistics, the majority of these crimes are concentrated in heavily populated areas (this seems to corroborate with worldwide trends.). See my argument #1...people kill people, especially when you cram them in a small, stinky space. Human nature. Take away one thing, we'll either find it another way or find a substitute.

3) The Constitution. The right to bear arms has been beaten to death. The 2nd amendment was created in order to have a readily available militia, amongst a other minor things. Home defense? sure, why not. The gun nuts (and I do own guns) tend to use this as a giant hammer, crying to the call of freedom. Ridiculous. Get over it. It's ok to say "I shoot guns because it's fun and makes me happy". No shame in that.

The ultimate issue is a Pandoras box, which actually applies to all kinds of ideas and objects. An idea or object is released to the world, and we want to tuck it away never to be seen again. This is setting everyone up for failure. Conceptually, it's like making a statement to a group of people, then retracting it...not exactly the solution.

Guns should be legal, but reform should take place. Emphasis higher education as a requirement (as in mandatory classes), mandatory firing instruction (as in, mandatory classes), and mandatory testing of such (book and field) before you can purchase a firearm. Education people, that is the key to anything.

Will this solve the occasional gun crazies out there? no. But if you are spending your time worrying about the typical Columbine or Virginia Tech stories, get over it. You're more likely to die from a car collision than getting shot.

Yes, I'll hear "You say that because it didn't happen to you", or "your wasn't shot at the grocery store". You are correct, and it's a luxury I have. It's called objectivity.