If two people are pointing a gun at each other, chances are someone is going to get shot. You might not be the lucky guy. 

If there are no guns, no one will get shot.

A criminal will probably be more likely to shoot a victim if the victim is pointing a gun back at the criminal.

You should think about the logic you are using once.

Certain people break laws with guns, therefore we should make guns illegal to at least try to prevent this from happening.

Well by that logic, we should also ban vehicles, because certain people break laws with them, and without vehicles being allowed, those laws wouldn't be broken.

We should also ban baseball bats, because certain people break laws with them, and if we ban them, it will prevent this from happening.

We should ban knives because certain people break laws with them, and if we ban them, we will at least try to prevent this from happening.

Etc, etc etc.

------

Banning guns isn't the solution to this occurring.  Contrary to that, I'd say a much better solution (which will likely never happen) is to fix how people treat each other.  Just MAYBE, if people weren't bullied throughout their entire childhood, they wouldn't decide to shoot up an entire school?  Just maybe, if the average American wasn't just a dickhead that treats everybody like an ass and only cares about himself, things like this wouldn't happen quite as often?

The problem is a lot bigger than guns, but it won't likely ever get fixed, because people will continue to be dickheads, and the ones treated like shit will continue to go crazy because of those dickheads.

-------

While posting, I also might as well ask, so people see a problem with owning a gun, but they aren't mentioning anything about how it is weird that a citizen just has a bulletproof vest as well as tear gas?

And that's certainly true, that you're more likely to survive when there's no gun involved. Yet the only consistent data I have seen shows that there is less gun related crime when guns are allowed. That should reduce death from crime, because there's less crime happening. If you have data that disproves that, please share. But I have not seen that to be the case.

It also comes down to whether or not people are willing to give up the right to carry a gun. Is it okay to restrict something from everyone, just because a few people abuse it? I don't think it is. Especially when removing that right has not been proven to actually help anything.

The people for guns say it gives people protection. I find that to be a weak argument since most people don't carry guns on them enough to make it worth it. What type of society is it where you know you have to have a gun to be able to protect yourself from the average citizen? And if the victims do happen to have a gun when needed, when a gun confrontation takes place, its usually too quick for a defender to recognize the situation, pull out his weapon, and shoot back. I agree that it does help a group of people when they're defending territory or the like. But I think that group is way smaller than the deaths that occur due to criminals having the ease of access to firearms.

My finger wouldn't even hesitate.  Not sure about you, but my life (and my family's lives) is (are) very valuable to me, and if some dumbass comes into my house to rob me or hurt my family, he is going to die.

The reason I would ban guns isn't because "people use them to break laws." People use their fists to break laws, too, and you can't ban those.

I would ban guns because I see them as weapons of mass destruction. Or weapons of mass killing. A single person with a simple gun can use that gun to kill many more than one person. A gun is a weapon that gives a single person the ability to easily kill many. In this way, from my perspective it is no different in principal from a nuclear bomb.

A baseball bat does not truly give the wielder an advantage -- if you can run faster than them, you will be safe. If you can dodge a single swing and then punch them in the face, you will be fine. You cannot run from or dodge a bullet.

Likewise, cars may be flying metal death traps, but they are not truly weapons. You can drive your car into another car, and perhaps kill people in that car, but your own car will probably be wrecked after one such attack, and you yourself would be unlikely to be unharmed.

Notice that those other instruments also have multiple purposes: bats are used to play games, cars are used to transport people. Guns serve a single purpose and a single purpose only: killing. You don't shoot at something you aren't willing to kill. Guns are weapons of mass killing. It is hypocritical to support individuals' rights to carry guns but deny countries the rights to nuclear armaments. The arguments used supporting both are the same in principal. No country should have nuclear arms, and no civilian should carry a gun.

dodge

run from or dodge

It's some cultural thing that i don't get at all. People enjoy conceal-carrying wherever they go, which doesn't make them bad people, just that they shouldn't have to be shooting people to defend themselves.

It's a similar mentality to the little kid who brings his glove to baseball games in case a fly ball comes his way.

Only instead of dreaming about catching a fly ball, they dream about shooting bad people full of bullets. Makes me wonder why such people don't simply join the police force, although I wouldn't really want my local policemen to be so trigger-happy.

Somehow I dooubt gun proponents will let a story along the lines of "armed citizen shoots/prevents heavily armed citizen_2 from a killing spree." Highly, highly, doubt it.

Stopping means that people have died and someone stopped it, prevent means no one has died. The distinction is pretty drastic and huge. I also can't rememebr many cases wehre either has happened to be stopped by a citizen with a gun.