[nybble41]

What's the difference between a kitchen knife and one that can be used to kill someone? Nothing, you can kill someone with a kitchen knife—but that isn't what it was designed for. There are guns designed to kill unsuspecting people at a distance (sniper rifles), there are guns designed to be carried for self-defense, and there are guns designed for hunting or target sports. Any of them could be used to commit a murder, but that doesn't mean they are all equally suited for it. In the end a gun is just a tool. It's the intent of the person using the tool that counts.

[K0SM0S]

I think you pretty much nailed the bottom of that argument. I'd like to point out one thing: from a country¹ in which firearms are heavily restricted (non-law enforcers can't carry), there is little stigma if any on recreational shooting², and it's certainly a right to own such firearms at home. You just can't take them to work or to do shopping, only at the shooting range or equivalent, with precautions like partial disassembly, unloaded, in a bag... Normal practice.

So it's really not about weapons in and of themselves that the rest of the world is puzzled about this American debate, not about the supposed cruelty of everyday people (nobody believes that). It's really about the fact that carrying a gun to work is a very slippery slope, even if the gun is in the car. Same idea with not carrying dangerous explosives if you can help it, the risk is too high compared to most perceived benefits.

I think the self defense argument is very much biased by the fact that once others have guns, you may feel threatened not carrying yourself; conversely if no one carries you'd rather it stayed that way... It's a snake eating its own tail from both sides.

The truth is, it's actually not normal people carrying that kills a lot in the US (although child accidents are statistically too high compared to eg Europe or Asia iirc). It's really the problem of gangs etc. Most lethal shootings are statistically related to someone's lifelong "job", not everyday honest people. But removing guns from wide circulation means we don't have e.g. teens shooting others anywhere else in the world, nowhere near the same magnitude, which is a troubling fact. Indeed, it's the person that holds the gun that counts, and young minds shouldn't have access to guns in that regard. Not enough control yet, it's a biological fact.

[1]: France, but it's the same culture in most western EU countries afaik. Not sure about those closest to the Russian federation but I'm inclined to think they generally agree with us on the matter.

[2]: Hunting is certainly midly popular here in rural areas, and those who voice criticism are 99% about the animal cruelty angle, they couldn't care less if the killing was done with knifes or arrows instead. The gun angle is just not a thing in most countries where guns are effectively banned from regular society but obviously totally accessible for sports: it's OK, really.

[nybble41]

> I think the self defense argument is very much biased by the fact that once others have guns, you may feel threatened not carrying yourself; conversely if no one carries you'd rather it stayed that way...

Guns are not a prerequisite for feeling threatened. The self-defense argument is based on the fact that two arbitrary people armed with guns are much more likely to be evenly matched than two disarmed individuals. In particular, habitually violent individuals tend to be much more experienced at, and prepared for, unarmed combat than the general public. Skill with firearms also benefits from practice, of course, but almost any armed individual would at least stand a chance of winning against a determined attacker, whereas someone without extensive martial arts experience would be unlikely to successfully defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat. Guns represent an equalizing force.