it's the plethora of weapons there that are causing the genocide in the first place?
The above was a comment in regard to the Darfur region. However, the genocide is occurring because the plethora so described is nonetheless mostly or completely one-sided. If the victims of the genocide could reliably shoot back at the ones performing the genocide, there would suddenly be a lot less genocide going on. It would be an outright shooting war, but at least there would be some deterrence to be had. And if enough of the genocidal idiots die, the survivors might decide it would be cheaper to have peace.
As to "non-crime, non-hunting" uses for guns: Recreation with real bullets or with paint-balls. Hell, the biathlon is skiing and target shooting. That's been around for a long time as an Olympic sport and the Olympics are about as multi-national as you can get. So recreational shooting isn't limited to the USA by any means.
As to shooting varmints, I would respectfully suggest adding the nutria to the list of varmints that are eminently shootable. In other countries this creature might be called the coypu. It is a giant rat-beaver with a round (not flat) hairless tail, big yellow teeth, and a body profile vaguely like a capybara. It is a walking digestive tract for vegetation. Our university biology lab had a few. They would let the little buggers out in the enclosed courtyards. The nutria take a step and eat grass, take another step and poop, take a step and nibble grass, take a step and poop, .... you get the idea. A veritable poop assembly line.
Now, the issue of "why carry a gun" is answered by refusing to accept the limitations of "non-crime, non-hunting" reasons.
First, hunting is valuable as a means of animal population control. Most good hunters learn to accept the hunting license limitations, which are set based on actuarial tables of how many animals should be killed in a year to keep the population of that given animal under control. No, I'm not kidding - animal actuaries! Also taking into account that not every hunter brings back a particular animal each time s/he goes hunting.
Second, last night in N'Awlins, we had a case of a man who was walking with his girlfriend when they were accosted by a robber waving a gun. The robber turned his attention to the woman, who had reacted by screaming in panic. When his attention was distracted, the boyfriend drew his own handgun and ended the robber's threat. (Also ended the robber's life.) The boyfriend had a state "concealed carry" permit, which meant he had gone to a handgun safety class and had passed a written test on gun usage. Witnesses made it clear that the would-be robber approached with gun already drawn, so there was no question that the shooting was justified and self-defense.
So by allowing hunters to have guns, we perform controlled acts of animal population control. By allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns, we perform acts of human animal population control. And also make the bad guys think twice about robbing people in certain neighborhoods. The latter is called "deterrence" and it actually works well. Of course, for those too stupid to be deterred, "survival of the smartest" also works to control crime.
