i totally agree with u here. because everything stated in this arguement is very much true.

Criminals who want a gun will get them, even if there are strict gun control laws. Only the law abiding, future crime victims, will obey the ban. Even in countries that have a near total ban on ownership of guns, criminals will smuggle in guns, just like drugs are smuggled in. More sophisticated criminal gangs will even manufacture their own guns, or “reactivate” guns that were “deactivated”, such as in the UK. In short, no matter what laws are passed, criminals will have guns just as they have drugs. Banning a constitutionally protected thing because some people will misuse it is wrong, ineffective, and unconstitutional.

We don’t ban free speech because some people will say untrue and harmful things. We don’t ban religious freedom because some people will have suicide cults. We don’t ban the right to be represented by a lawyer because some criminals will use a good lawyer to get away with murder. Furthermore, having gun rights helps protect our other civil rights. Most guns are never used in a crime and most gun owners are law abiding citizens; we should not ban guns just because some people choose to misuse them

(in fact, ALL legal owners of guns are not felons since convicted felons are not allowed to own guns). The majority of gun-related crime is committed by people who are either already prohibited from having a gun by law (due to a felony or domestic violence conviction), or who would not be deterred by laws. The criminal who is about to commit murder, rape, robbery, or sell drugs, is not going to be deterred by a misdemeanor gun possession charge. On the other hand, the law abiding citizens whom we would want to have guns so that they can defend their homes, hunt, or enjoy the hobby of target practice, are the only people who would be deterred by gun control laws. I discuss this in further detail here, here and here. Guns are the great equalizer

Firearms allow the physically weaker members of our society (such as the elderly, women who are less physically strong then the men who might attack them, etc.) to defend themselves from physically stronger attackers. Taking away guns from the physically weaker members of society puts them at a disadvantage, relative to their physically stronger attackers. Furthermore, a person who is willing to commit rape or attack the elderly will also be willing to violate gun control laws, which puts the victim at an even greater disadvantage.

Although I live in a good area,which has an effective and professional police department, I feel better at night knowing that if I were left with no other choice, I could use a firearm to defend my family’s lives.

The fact is that even with an excellent police department and a home security system, it will still take several minutes for the police to come to your aid. Several minutes is an eternity when it comes to having a criminal in your home, and more than enough time for horrible things to happen. With a firearm (stored in a good safe when we are not home to prevent theft) I would likely be able to stop a home invader before they could commit commit crimes against my family. I sincerely hope I will never need to use a firearm against another human being, but my shotgun just might save our lives if a criminal breaks in to harm us. If someone broke into your home at night, could you protect your family without a firearm? I discuss this in greater detail here.

i support this statement because it is very true./bbusbin

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT BOUND TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS AND THEREFORE WE ALL HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE.

If private individuals have to rely on self-protection, is the purposeful action of the government to deprive citizens of the means to defend themselves actionable under the rationale of DeShaney and its progeny? Arguably, restrictive gun control laws that disable people in the face of potentially fatal violent encounters, which are abundant in modern urban life, exceed the governmental inaction that was held to be permissible in DeShaney. Such state monopolization of means of protection available to individuals transgresses the scope of permissible regulation in other areas, such as abortion. In self-defense situations, lives of individuals may be at stake because of the immediacy of potential harm and the inadequacy of response by an unarmed citizen facing a criminal attack.