Before I start here, I disagree with gun bans. I believe in licenseeing and registration. And just like with a car, where there is a different license between a motorcycle, a car, and a semi-truck, I think there should be different level of licenses between guns and how dangerous they are. This is neither unconstitutional, and if the licenseeing classes are cheap(ish) and readily available, will not prevent citizens from legally acquiring weapons. Registration will also greatly hinder weapons falling into the hands of criminals (its estimated that 40% of weapons used by criminals were straw purchases).

As for the Genocide comment...that's not actually as true as people think. Australia and some other countries have had massive gun control laws passed, and no Genocide. Meanwhile, in Nazi Germany, the Nazis were actually DEREGULATING the weapons to help arm the Aryan race for the coming genocide (post WWI and Treaty of Versailles, Germans weren't allowed to own any type of weapons).

You also mentioned evil people will still do evil. This is true. But, if you stab someone directly in the heart, they have at least a 40% chance of survival. You shoot someone, they have, at most, 20% survival. You can repeatedly bludgeon someone in the head and not kill them. You shoot them in the head, chances are slim they will survive. And that's one on one. The guy in China who attacked school children with a knife killed 0 children. No-one died. Because it was a knife. If it was a gun, they'd be dead.

1. You mean like malls, churches, school, and movie theaters? This is an easy question to answer. It has nothing to do with the lack of guns, and everything to do with the number of people. If you are trying to kill the most number of people, you don't go into the middle of the woods to shoot people, you need some place public.

I believe that statement is misleading. The worst shooting was the Newton, CT shooting, which does have some strict gun laws. But Virginia Tech shooting? Kip Kinkel's shooting in the 90s? If your statement is accurate (which there would have to be a large discussion as to what is considered "Strict" and what isn't), I think we'd see something like a 60-40 split, while your statement leads one to believe its like a 80-20 split.

What? You think we aren't upset about that? Why would you think that?

There is a large difference between drugs and weapons. Again, I don't agree with bans, but drugs I can make at home. A large number of my friends brew beer in their own house. I don't associate with too many pot-smokers, but many of the ones I do grow from home. A number of those also grow shrooms. Meth labs in people's garages are not rare.
But how many of the people I know can manufacture a working projectile weapon? Let alone a high powered, semi-automatic, weapon?

If Gun bans only cause genocides in third world countries, than we don't have to worry about a genocide in the US.

I use a knife every day. I have never stabbed someone. I use it to prepare food. I use to eat my food. I use it to cut wood. I use it for a hundred other things than hurt, maim, or destroy.
I rarely use a gun. When I do use a gun, the only intent I have with that gun is to destroy something. Whether that be a target or in hunting, the purpose of a gun is to destroy something.
If we compare the number of guns there are to the number of knives, bludgeons, and hands, as well as how often these items are used, we'll see that guns are used to kill significantly more than anything else.

So we should never have laws. Ever.