>If everyone has a gun, then it only takes one nutcase to cause a bloodbath. If noone has a gun then no-one will get killed by a gun. Even if a robber has a gun, he won't use it unless neccesary, so no deaths either. And if two oposing camps have guns, you can be pretty sure there is blood going to flow...
>
>You don't have to be einstein to see this.
>

The problem with the no-gun argument is that it is totally unrealistic, for two reasons:

1) If someone wants to committ murder (or suicide, for that matter), a way will be found. Anything and everything has been used as murder weapons. Guns. Knives. Baseball bats. Axes. Banjos. I personally know a woman whose husband was trying to kill her via slow poison.

2) There is NO WAY that firearms - or any other potential weapon - can be removed from society. No possible way.

I would suggest you read up on stories of when firearms have been used to stop or prevent theft, rape, and murder. The "American Rifleman" publishes some every month. They're probably listed on the NRA website.

Personally, I feel that firearm training should be part of high school curricula. If more people become familiar with them, accidental deaths would drop. The US doesn't have compulsory military service, and hasn't for quite some time, so there is a huge segment of society that no longer has any type of even rudimentary firearms training.

But I also feel that personal responsibility plays a huge role in firearms safety, and personal responsibility seems to be a concept that a lot of liberals have problems with.