So many incorrect assumptions/illogical conclusions to address.
The only difference is that guns only intention is to kill.
BINGO. Which is why your "ban cars" argument holds no water.
This comes with their ability to be used as for murder as well as self-defense. But truthfully I care more about my ability to defend my life than I care about my ability to travel in a vehicle.
I make no assumption about your age, but I know you're much younger than me. Without a car, I would have to take buses to work and add about 30-40 minutes travel time to a trip that takes me 20 to make. Additionally, I lose the ability to drive myself to get groceries, see family and friends, etc. Valuing guns over cars is incredibly short-sighted and naïve.
Both can be abused. There are far more deaths from car accidents (drunk or not) than gun murders, and there are far more guns.
At the moment, that is narrowly correct. But recent studies show that the yearly number of gun-related deaths are set to eclipse the number of car-related deaths by 2015. This is due to the increasing safety measures taken in relation to cars (and the lack thereof in relation to guns).
Gun control has only brought a rise in violent crime in Australia and the UK, regardless how minor their gun crime is.
This is also brazenly false. The UK has and has continuously had a very low gun-related crime rate. Most of their crimes are committed with knives, and I'd much rather have a knife pointed at me than a gun.
Criminals will never turn their guns in.
You greatly underestimate "criminals" (an incredibly vague and nebulous term, who exactly does that encompass?): many times in American history, large cities (I know Baltimore was one) have enacted programs where the police asked all citizens to turn in illegal firearms, no questions asked. It would be completely anonymous, and no arrests would be made. They recovered THOUSANDS.
"Criminals" rarely want to kill you any more than you want to get shot. Most of the "criminals" I'm sure you're referring to - urban black males - use handguns for the same reason YOU profess: self defense. Unless you are enlisted in a local gang war, the chances you'll need a handgun are incredibly remote.
All mass murders in the last 50 years minus 1 have been in no gun zones. Clearly gun control is not the issue. Society would be best with everyone armed at all times.
Because mass murderers are cowards who want a high body count, of course they'll go the path of least resistance. Keep in mind, dying in a mass murder is as likely as being struck by lightning or being in a plane crash. Do you walk around every day wearing a grounded lightning rod helmet?
Also, arming everyone = dangerous. There is absolutely no way to guarantee that everyone carrying a gun is properly trained on how to use it and keep it clean. Very recently, an experienced gun owner was showing a pistol to a man who wanted to buy it, and when he went to put it back in his car it accidentally discharged and killed his own son. And you want EVERYONE to carry?
btw: Once again quick draw fool. There were multiple of you. If you all had had a weapon what are the criminals odds?
This is ludicrous. We had been drinking and he PLANNED HIS ATTACK. The light was behind him so we couldn't see his face. The gun was already pointed at my face before I even knew he was standing there. A gun would've gotten me killed.
Another point is that if we were an armed society, criminals would think twice about robbing groups of people at night. Although self defense isn't for the faint hearted.
Or maybe they'd just shoot first instead of risking me pull my own piece out. They're already committing armed robbery, why not take the next step to ensure there is no witness?
If you have a concealed carry you recognize the everyday threat of criminals and would never think nothing of being walked up to at 3am in your own driveway. Hand on your pistol in your pocket at the very least, just incase. I'm confident that in 1 second I could fire upon an average thug / crackhead on the street attempting to rob me. And I would to save my own life and even morose to protect my family. And no logical thinking person should give up this right.
I actually have no problem with people properly training themselves in order to earn an concealed carry permit. But if you're really under the impression that you can "quick draw" on an armed robber, you're exactly the person who shouldn't have one.
I don't see how I can actually practice shooting criminals. I am not a cop and I have not been in a scenario where I needed to use deadly force.
Ah, and therein lies the entire problem of your argument: you think a gun magically solves the nightmare robbery scenario, except there's no way to train for that (unless you're law enforcement/military).
The last thing I'll ever do is be tied up and watched my family rapped or murdered. Have some dignity.
Resisting an armed robber is an entirely different situation than a home invasion. Besides, the home invasion goes one of two ways: either he gets the jump on you and there isn't dick you can do to save your family, or you hear him coming and have plenty of time to grab your piece and take care of business. There's no concealed carry/quick draw scenario there.
Imanalt: The criminal isn't expecting to be met with resistance. There is an element of surprise taking a pistol out of your pocket instead of you money and immediately firing. Criminals are after more than just senseless murder, $$$. They aren't truly committed to killing someone as one should be with a gun pointed at them.
I agree with this, and it's probably your strongest argument. But you really need to ask yourself what's worth losing: your wallet/phone, or possibly your life (plus wallet/phone anyway)?
Teachers in Israel carry assault rifles for a reason.
Yes. Because the country is at war.
