Perhaps if you put a little more effort into reading EVERYTHING what is written, and a little less effort into cherry-picking soundbites that you can use to support your preconceived ideas, you might become a more credible debater.If you could address the essence of an argument, rather than chalking up imaginary wins in your head by focusing on the narrowest possible interpretation of everything that you disagree with,it would be that much harder to dismiss you as a mere troll. Your apologies come across as insincere.
As to a society where there is no fear from guns, I'm living in one. As I've explained before, New Zealand has relatively high levels of gun ownership, but appears to be able to manage firearms in a more intelligent manner. Strict legislation around types of guns and ammunition, coupled with a sensible rules around storage and transport of weapons and a rigorous licencing system mean that guns very rarely figure in crime news. Interestingly, the argument that 'alternative weapons will be found if guns are unavailable' doesn't hold water here either. If as claimed, violence is inevitable with or wiithout guns, there would be some kind of parity in overall homicide rates between gun owning nations and those that restrict or ban their sale.
Instead, the homicide rate per capita in the US is 4 times that of NZ. IO'm not sure whether this is because Americans are bred to be more beligerent, or whether the presence of guns helps to justify violence, but the general consensus here would be that America is going down a self-fulfilling track to a violent society. The average police officer does not carry a sidearm, the average gun owner treats it as hunting tool rather than a means to quell their own insecurity about other gun owners. You may not care for the truths surrounding firearm statistics, but I'm not about to be intimidated into not challenging third-rate debating techniques when I see them.