>>34
Wrong. As I have already proven, you are an idiot. The reason you think we haven't coverred your entire argument is because you cannot be botherred to analyse our points in context to the points we are criticising. I will be nice an do the thinking for you, but don't expect everyone to be as nice and me in the real world.
1: Guns are easier to use, therefore victims are more likely to be able to defend themselves.
If we take your example into account... Fumbling around in your bag for a pistol to defend yourself is less difficult than fumbling around in your bag for a bottle of mace. For a start a makarov can shoot through a bag and if you hit his leg it will take him down. Mace can do neither of these.
2: Having a few privately owned armouries makes it easier for the police to destroy an entier region's arms supply. We should have 300 million privately owned armouries. 1 per person, if they want a gun. Also crime can be committed in public places so we must permit firearms to be taken into public places.