Compare firearm deaths where an innocent person lost their life to a law abiding citizen with a firearm, to the large amount of people that loose their lives in car accidents where the vehicle was used as a weapon when the owner deliberately became intoxicated and went for a drive.... Why the double standard? Yes, a vehicle is a tool, but so are guns. Society demonizes the firearm, though it is simply a tool. Lots of people rely on firearms on a daily basis, and have a DAMN good reason for having them, just as a lot of people own vehicles... Since the second that this wonderful country was born, people have been working to strip the rights away from people given to them by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If a good person has a gun, he can stop a mad man with a gun from killing more people. If citizens waited for a police officer with a gun to show up any time waiting is another bullet from the bad guys. The problem is people don't trust other people with guns . Because they don't want a gun, they think no one should have one . It is irrational. I don't believe people should be left defenseless against crazy people.
The assumption that 545 people can decide how 100 million can defend themselves is pompous and stupid. The government can't predict every scenario. You don't know if 1 or 2 people will invade your home, or 5 or 6. 5-6 invaders is not unheard of in America. 10 rounds to take care of 5-6 people is not nearly enough. Even for 3 people it's not enough.
Criminals do not obey laws, and therefore will not obey stricter gun laws. Law-abiding citizens do obey laws, and therefore will have less freedom when it comes to firearms. This will only make the gap larger between the power of criminals and the power of ordinary citizens. It will make it harder to defend yourself with stricter gun laws.
Pardon the cliche in the title, but strict gun laws only hurt the law-abiding citizens, not the ones who have malicious intent. A prime example of this are gun buybacks. No criminal is going to turn in their gun for a couple bucks. Rather, those who turn in their own guns are left with less of a defense against those who wish to do them harm. Finally, if criminals know that their victim probably won't have a gun because strict gun laws exist, they are more likely to attack/rob/rape their victim compared to if the probability is higher (with lax gun laws) that their intended victim has a gun.
If you're walking down the street and someone starts shooting, would you be able to pull out your gun, aim and fire? I doubt many people would be able to do that without being shot first, and what if you shot an innocent bystander? How easy is it to shoot one person in a crowded street? The thing is, if we had tougher gun laws, the author who's shooting might not even have a gun. Isn't it better to prevent a shooting then stop one after several people have been killed?
The only reason the people that say we need these to defend ourselves is because of how many of the freaking things are on the street because of how stupid they've been about regulating it for so long. To the tin foil hats saying you need your guns to protect yourself from a government takeover, guess what, if tanks go up against "guy who shoots on the range on the weekends", tanks win