dcowboys055 wrote:One thing that hasn't been mentioned in the thread, is it ok to take away the ability of a law abiding "good" citizen to protect themself, their family, and their home? The discussion has centered around bad guys getting the guns anyways. Not throwing my opinion out there, just wondering.
As mentioned before, you have "bad guys" and "insane guys" (there is some overlap but it's statistically insignificant)
For the insane guys, I haven't heard of a case where a spree shooter is taken down by a civilian with their own firearm. It's always the cops that take them down as far as I've seen. You have crimes of passion I guess, but they come under the insane heading, where the perpetrator will not have ready access and will pick up a knife or some other weapon. It's not that they want to shoot their victim, they want to hurt them, so whatever is the most convenient weapon will normally be used.
For the bad guys, generally they aren't actually that interested in hurting or killing anyone (just makes their sentences longer if they get caught), but rather in dealing drugs or robbing people or otherwise profiting somehow from their crime. An innocent civilian stands the risk to get robbed (and even if they had a gun they would have to have it ready when they get a gun pulled on them or it's useless anyway) but generally speaking they aren't at much risk of serious personal harm from bad guys.