I found this interesting: The original poster states:
"However, "gun deaths", as defined by the source data, I think does include homicides, accidents, and suicides, as well as justified shootings by citizens and law enforcement. Some posters have taken exception to that, but I say it's valid -- even in the case of justified shootings, since most justified shootings are due to the perpetrator being armed as well."
Personally, I would like to see fewer murders and more justified shootings. The end result would be the same number of "gun deaths", but the outcome would be very different.
I have tried using logic with anti-gunners, but it generally doesn't work. Typically they are responding to emotional arguments rather than reason. This said, the simple logic goes like this:
Criminals are, by definition, individuals who do not follow the laws of society. So any laws put into effect will primarily impact law-abiding citizens.
The other big issue is that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or sport shooting. It was written by our forefathers to provide the citizenry with the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical. That they chose to put this as the second amendment tells us how very important it was to them to preserve our right to bear arms.
With this in mind, I'm against any law that reduces the ability of the American citizenry to defend their rights and preserve their liberty.
