Eljefe:
your argument is a popular one with pro-gun advocates but it is not only unsubstantiated by facts and real world evidence it is also illogical because it presumes that guns would be easily available to the criminal element.
a. the idea that persons would defend themselves with their own guns against criminals and the implicit assertion that victims of crimes are in fact defending themselves with their guns is just plain unsubstantiated by the real world evidence. Violence is occuring all the time and more often than not it is those with the guns doing the killling, not the vicitms with the guns. If a victim of a crime has gun it is more likely that that gun will be used against them than it is that they would successfully defend themselves, especially since the vast majority of gun owners are probably inadequately trained and it is probably safe to say that 99.9% of gun owners have never been in a situation where they had to or may have had to actually shoot a fellow human being. People are not engaging in shootouts with criminals "holding them off" until the cavalry comes as you so prosaically suggest.
b. With regard to the second point above, what I am suggesting is not just that the laws which permit private gun ownership should be changed so as not to allow it but that more importantly guns should be regulated at the MANUFACTURING/DISTRIBUTION levels.
May I point out to you that it is not so easy for a "criminal" to acquire a STINGER Ground-to-Air Missile. Why? Because the manufacturing of such weaponry is tightly controlled and just who can obtain one is tightly controlled. If guns, ALL GUNS, from hunting rifles to handguns were given the exact same treatment as Stinger shoulder fired missiles then your average criminal who jacks someone for their car or who holds up a market is not going to be able to acquire one. Only the extreme terrorist or deep-pocketed crime org might then be able to acquire guns and it would be much much more easier for law enforcement to track such illegal owners down.
So yes just simply making it hard for the average person would do nothing to keep criminals from getting guns. But if society totally adopted the view point that we are going to treat guns (and bullets) like nuclear material, shoulder fired missiles, hand-grenades, etc. then it would be a completely different story. It is even probable that guns (and bullets) would be so difficult to obtain that many criminals would be reluctant to attempt to commit their crimes with other alternatives and thus crime and violence across the board might drop.
JeannieBeanz:
You raise the other popular fallacy argued by pro-gun supporters. Namely that the "people" need their guns to keep the "government" from overrunning us (and presumably becoming some sort of Nazi state?) as you say you don't "trust the government".
Well I will just skip the "trust" issue and the fundamental argument of just how silly it is to think that the government would do something like that (in this country at least) (we have learned from the past afterall) because these are actually irrelevant.
IF YOU THINK THAT ALL OF THE GUN-OWNERS could somehow thwart the Government in any action that it might take then you are just stupid. Even if EVERYONE owned an automatic or semi-automatic M-16, the populace would NEVER stand a chance against the government which would bring upon the populace the ARMED FORCES which has HELLO! --- F-16s, Apache Gunships, Smart Bombs, Tanks, etc. etc. not too mention TRAINED professional soldiers. (I am afraid you once saw "Red Dawn" and took it for nonfiction.)
So the whole idea that it is an armed populace that is somehow keeping in abeyance the tyrany of the "Government" is sheer nonsense. If the Government/Armed Forces really wanted to they could for all intents and purposes take over full control of the land and all that any "armed" citizens could do would be to continue a futile and ineffective "insurrection." FOR MORE EDUCATION SEE THE WAR IN IRAQ! Certainly the "private gun owners" were not very effective from PREVENTING the government (US led coalition forces) from "taking over the country" and imposing martial law and abridging many fundamental rights and you know what the private gun owners in this country would be no more effective in the same situation either.
-Eduardo
