Abolish the Second Amendment

Read what I wrote before you attack it. We are allowed to defend ourselves if we are being attacked by whatever means necessary I wasn't implying that God gave us guns, I was saying that we have free will and it is our right to defend ourselves if needed (don't use hyperbolic examples in your arguments like warheads and don't twist what I'm arguing into something that sounds silly; that's annoying). Anywho, our justice system agrees with this; killing and injuring others in self defense has been upheld as noncriminal activity for ages.

I agree with your second paragraph (almost) wholeheartedly, but I would like to modify your phrasing with the insertions of a few statements that don't contradict your point, but reframe it to something both of the extreme sides of the issue can't help but agree with.

Lets just have a [state or local] experiment to [give concrete evidence] in this debate. Take two towns/cities [or two different states]. [Put heavy restrictions on] guns in one area [so essentially only police and hunters have guns] and mandate that all competent adults [who want to] be educated and have a gun, do so. [This includes the ability to carry weaponry on one's person concealed or otherwise]. See what happens in a year or two [or as long as one of the areas can stand the new program] and that should [give a strong argument for a side].

I will argue unequivocally that crime (both violent and nonviolent) will plummet when more guns are available to the freedom-loving, law abiding, good natured citizens. This notion comes from one basic idea: you don't do bad things to other people's property, life, and pursuit of happiness if the consequences could mean your own wellbeing. However, I know that a of people will argue the opposite point and I can't fault them because they have come to that conclusion with, I trust, sound judgment and equal thought and deliberation.

On an mildly related point, I want to tell you an untrue story. It is a portion of a National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one; are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended.

Now back on topic:

It isn't guns that cause a violence problems, it's criminals or people who are careless/uneducated. We shouldn't be taking away a right we've had since our creation as a nation (and one that the founders intended for us to have) because of the malicious behavior and poor education of a few.

Rock on

"people's God-given right"
Yea seriously if god didn't want us to shoot each other why would he have created guns?
/sarcasm

To say that because there are other bigger killers doesn't mean we should ignore this issue. Certainly there is a right to defend oneself, but the argument is to what degree? What is reasonable? If you say we all have the right to arms, then certainly I could have a small warhead in my basement right? Most reasonable people agree that there needs to be some limit. No one is saying you shouldn't defend yourself, but to what level of destruction should we escalate the weaponry to? Assault guns? Rifles? Fists and knives? Shotty snipers? I believe in an ideal world we would not have guns, but the problem is that might not be feasible.

Lets just have a national experiment to solve this debate once an for all. Take two towns/cities with similar crime rates, population, etc. Ban guns in one area and mandate that all competent adults be educated and given a gun. See what happens in a year or two and that should settle it.

My Switzerland vs. Jamaica argument is there to suggest that the number of guns in a society doesn't imply that there will be violence (a common misconception). I understand your counterargument(s), but I stand by my 6 arguments and I'd like to add one more.

The vast, vast majority of Americans will die from:
Diseases of the heart, cancer, stroke, chronic lower respiratory disease, diabetes, flu & pneumonia, kidney disease, systemic infection, liver disease, and high blood pressure. Violent crimes where guns are involved whether the damage be accidental or intentional don't even come close to the numbers generated by the previously mentioned conditions and I have numbers to back that up. I'm not suggesting that a small amount of death from guns is a good thing; one death is a tragedy! Any death that can be prevented should be the top priority of everybody in a well functioning society.

I'm just saying: we should work to prevent and cure (or "ban") the major conditions I listed and the ones that I didn't enumerate ten times more than we should work to take away people's God-given right to defend themselves.

"people live off deer meat."

wow, thank you for that...

I don't think quoting the NRA is an appropriate argument in the discussion about gun control. They would sell their grandmother to be able to sell more firearms...

You cannot compare Jamaica and Switzerland when it comes to gun control. Switzerland as an industrial Western Euopean nation having no violent history whatsoever (the only war they fought was their war for independence) cannot be compared to Jamaica which is on rank 101 of the HDI (Switzerland in 7th). There is a completely different culture and a completely different upbringing in both of these countries making their comparison not objective at all. But why do you think Switzerland has such a low crime rate? They choose the people who are allowed to buy guns. They check them thoroughly and they check the people who sell the guns. You cannot buy guns at just any store in Switzerland and you cannot buy ammunition at Walmart.
Arguing to defend yourself against Mexican immigrants or international terrorists is so far from reality that it becomes comic in a way. I get your point but I do not expect you to really think that is a possibility.
Of course the people who are committing gun-related crimes won't care about a restriction but it will be a lot harder for them to get their hands on pistols and such.
But why do you think Switzerland has such a low crime rate? They choose the people who are allowed to buy guns. They check them thoroughly and they check the people who sell the guns. You cannot buy guns at just any store in Switzerland and you cannot buy ammunition at Walmart.

people live off deer meat.