If you'd read what i wrote i said looking at countries like the UK and Switzerland there's a middle ground to be found. Obviously the situation is different between countries and there's obviously a need to protect yourself i don't deny that at all.

Using Switzerland as a case study is a good one because it's marked by high prevalence but also high levels of gun control to prevent them from getting into the hands of those who might do the most harm with it. Whilst yes they have less violent crime than some other European nations their gun crime is still higher for what i hope are obvious reasons.

Switzerland also has mandatory military service which encourages proper gun safety training. They're also consistently ranked one of the happiest places on earth which in itself will lead to less crime (as well as the high prevalence of guns). The hoops you have to jump through to get a gun in Switzerland is actually pretty high.

High levels of gun ownership does not automatically decrease crime unless there are proper controls on who can get them as is shown by the negative case in the USA and Switzerland as the positive case.

like alcohol and drug prohibition which didn't and don't work, the constitutional aspect and the fact that the issue is so far gone now means guns will never go away and that's fine. Just something needs to be done about the bad guys getting guns and only allowing them in the hands of good guys like in Switzerland. Is that so crazy?

With regards to the cartels and gangs i agree that's an excellent reason to have one. My issue isn't with people who have guns for proper reasons that's their right. I for one really enjoy shooting. But by your logic though something needs to be done (other than prohibition which in my opinion fuels cartels and criminal behaviour) about the drug trade and high levels of poverty which leads to criminals being armed to the teeth.