Doom, am I correct in believing that your rationale for gun ownership is something to the effect of:
Though a gunless world is preferred, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible. That being the case, it is logical that in a world where guns exist that those who would be most likely to procure them would be individuals or groups with ill-intentions. As such, it is necessary for others to arm themselves in response to that threat?
This is everyone's rationale for non-sporting gun ownership, there isn't another rationale to be had. It's astonishing that people don't see the obvious logic flaw.
What is the logic flaw?
You're not going to get guns out of the hands of "bad guys" whom ever the eff they are until the "good guys" are willing to give them up.
If there was a gun ban the people targeted most strongly would be the same people who are the first disenfranchise by most laws. Joe the Plumber in Berea, OH with a .22 under his mattress would have hardly anything to worry about. These (you) people don't understand that gun laws would effect the "bad guys" first.
When will gun people stop being afraid of a n-word coming into their window at night and realize a bigger threat to safety are the people who fit the profile of legal gun owners.
