[Spats McGee]

When debating anti-gunners, remember that they do not care to be confused by facts. IMHO, the anti-gun arguments boil down into two basic categories: (1) emotionally-based arguments; and (2) top-down societal arguments. There is much overlap and the "if it saves just one life," could reasonably fit into either or both.

1. Emotionally-based arguments: The anti-gunners are prone to much hand-wringing and wailing, proclaiming the horrors that will no doubt befall any society that allows its common people to be armed. "Look at little Johnny! He was just turning his life around . . . " Frequently, "little Johnny" hadn't really succeeded in turning his life around, and was killed in a defensive gun use. Nonetheless, to the anti-gunners, he had potential and therefore deserved to live. These are the same folks crying, "He could have shot him in the leg."

"Think of all of the toddlers that are caught in the crossfire, killed by guns every year." Let there be no doubt, an innocent killed is a tragedy. However, that is true regardless of the means of death. As others have noted, many are killed by cars and bathtubs. Some are even killed by air bags. This is a bit of a trickier situation, in that it gets off into a situation that really is horrible to contemplate. IMHO, the fault often lies with a parent or guardian who neglected to secure his or her firearms. When that's the case, the next question is often one about secure storage laws. And then we turn to enforcement and run headlong into the Fourth Amendment (at least in the USA)....

2. Top-down societal arguments: "30K people are killed every year by gun violence." I'm sure we've all seen or heard breakdowns of those numbers. How many are gang shootings? How many are suicides? How many are committed by persons already prohibited from possessing firearms? All valid points.

My theory on this: Governments view their respective societies from a top-down view. They look at gross national products, total numbers of jobs created or lost, percentages gained or lost. They don't care that Joe Schmoe, individually, lost his job and won't be able to pay his electric bill next month. In other words, governments care about how many people are killed. Gun owners care who is killed. The hypothetical example I have used is this: "(1) imagine that Congress could pass a law that would somehow (magically) limit the number of deaths by firearms in this country to 1; but (2) that 1 will be your child next year. Would you vote for it?" From a top-down view, such a law makes a ton of sense. For a parent of that child, it's abhorrent.

As for myself, I have a right and a responsibility to protect myself and my family, and perhaps those near and dear to me. I do not necessarily have the same right or responsibility to protect the rest of the country, or the world.