Guns have no power, the power is in the holder's hand. If the holder had proper restrictions, this wouldn't have happened.

As said by Ann Coulter, "Guns are our friends because in a country without guns, I'm what's known as "prey." All females are.” If the girl had a gun, she could have shot the shooter and saved many lives. Guns usually scare the criminal away in public shootings. http://secondamendment1.weebly.com/pros-and-cons.html

An apartment manager sitting in her car while talking with a tenant shot the tenant's husband several times, killing him, after he began stabbing through the window during the argument. The tentant's husband was a danger to her, the gun probably saved her life. http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/gun-save-lives-stories/2014/10/28/id/603652/

No, there are more dangerous weapons that kill many citizens each year such as fires, falls, and poisoning. They wouldn't be able to ban dogs from the country, because there are many things that are dangerous to the citizens but they wouldn't be able to ban. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/10/bruce-w-krafft/the-costs-and-benefits-of-the-second-amendment-without-the-benefits/

No, there are more dangerous weapons that kill many citizens each year such as fires, falls, and poisoning. They wouldn't be able to ban dogs from the country, because there are many things that are dangerous to the citizens but they wouldn't be able to ban. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/10/bruce-w-krafft/the-costs-and-benefits-of-the-second-amendment-without-the-benefits/

If the second amendment was dismissed, the criminals would find a way to import guns, and no citizens had guns then the criminals would have an advantage. If guns were banned and criminals imported them illegally, the citizens that follow the law wouldn't have guns which would be to the criminal's advantage. http://apecsec.org/2nd-amendment-pros-and-cons/

A woman’s adult son shot and injured his mother’s boyfriend, Tony Hardin, in Tennessee, after Hardin allegedly fought with the woman and chased her with a hammer, threatening to kill her. Hardin faces charges. The mother probably would have been killed by the boyfriend if the son didn't shoot him. This saves the mother's life. http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/gun-save-lives-stories/2014/10/28/id/603652/

To argue your point that most murders in America are cause by guns, there is a graph showing that there are more dog bites than firearms in America. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/10/bruce-w-krafft/the-costs-and-benefits-of-the-second-amendment-without-the-benefits/

To argue your point that the police cant help every individual, because the average time it takes for a police to respond is 11 minutes, so the citizens need protection if the police doesn’t come in time. http://concealedguns.procon.org

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/second-amendment

“GUNS ARE NOT THE ISSUE. WE ARE.”

― Aaron B. Powell, Guns

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”

― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

Guns don't have any power alone, they only have power when they are in someone's hands. That person could either use it for good or evil, so the guns aren't the problem.

http://concealedguns.procon.org

The average time it takes for a police to respond is 11 minutes, so the citizens need protection if the police doesn’t come in time. The citizen needs protection until the police comes. Also, the police can't protect every individual.

http://secondamendment1.weebly.com/pros-and-cons.html

Armed citizens can help reduce crime because according to John Lott (PhD) gun laws helped reduce "homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, rapes by 5%, and robberies by 3%" So no it doesn't increase the victims likeliness of a homicide.

If the second amendment gets taken away the criminals would turn to other weapons such as; knives, baseball bats, gasoline and matches, etc. If they make guns illegal and the criminals moved on to stabbings the country wouldn't ban knives, and baseballs, etc.

If the owner of the gun stores the gun safely and out of reach of children then the gun will be to their benefit. “Criminals simply retreats 55.5% of the time" when seeing their victims with drawled guns according to a Journal written by a Phd named Gary Kleck. If the criminal sees that the victim has a gun they would most probably get scared and leave. Even if the 2nd amendment was taken away the people could have still illegally imported guns and then the citizens that didn't

illegally import guns would be at a disadvantage.

http://thebilzerianreport.com/criminals-will-love-gun-control/

The gun is used for self defence and as said by Ann Coulter; “Guns are our friends because in a country without guns, I'm what's known as "prey." All females are.” An example of a real life story is, a woman’s adult son shot and injured his mother’s boyfriend, Tony Hardin, in Tennessee, after Hardin allegedly fought with the woman and chased her with a hammer, threatening to kill her. Hardin faces charges. The man would have most likely killed the mother if her son didn't stop him. Even though her son shot him he used the gun for self defence to protect his mother and himself.

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/gun-save-lives-stories/2014/10/28/id/603652/

http://secondamendment1.weebly.com/pros-and-cons.html

“Criminals simply retreats 55.5% of the time" when seeing their victims with drawled guns according to a Journal written by a Phd named Gary Kleck. Someone with a restricted gun permit could stop the criminal which would have killed many people. The gun saved many lives.

Armed citizens can help reduce crime because according to John Lott (PhD) gun laws helped reduce "homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, rapes by 5%, and robberies by 3%"

But if they never had a relationship with a fellow soldier then they wouldn't go through that trauma. And also consider that they don't only get that PTS when their boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse is killed they could also get it if their friend gets killed.

Men are physically stronger and gain muscle easier then women but there are other things to consider such as speed and reflexes

No because, if the men really focus on their training and don't get distracted they could prevent any romance. Also if men and women get separated after training and women have an area without the men that would also prevent any romance. Also women can excel just as much as men, maybe they would have to try harder but they are capable of the same things.

I believe that they should be trained together because, by training them separately you are saying that men are better than women and that they are more capable of physical activity which is not true. Men and women should be treated equally because, if they try they are both capable of excelling. I also think that women should train with men because, it would also lead them to try harder in order to be as good as men and to be as capable as them.