perfidy

John Lott, who wrote the book "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press) has studied the linkage between gun ownership, particularly in areas with shall issue concealed carry laws, and reduced crime rates. The more restrictive the gun laws, the higher the violent crime rates. Cities tend to have the most restrictive gun ownership laws, but not all cities. On the bad side, look at DC - which has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, or what has happened to crime rates in England since the complete ban on weapon ownership. "The counter-argument might be that homicides won't disappear if guns are removed, and will still be accessible if they are banned. I say give it a try." It has been tried, and criminals still have guns, and citizens cannot protect themselves. This policy is a failure. If people in your neighborhood were armed, adnd were able to defend themselves, the criminals (who are not completely stupid) would change their behavior. Where gun restrictions are relaxed, this is what happens. 

And that is merely the pragmatic argument. Mike, I'm surprised at you - you would forfeit your right to defend yourself? You would meekly wait for the police to arrest the people who kill or rob you, long after it would do you any good? Guns allow you to defend yourself from the thugs in your neighborhood - even many of them. Despite your formidable infighting skills, only a gun would allow you to face down five or six drug addled violent teenagers. 

[Moreover] You can have my Kimber .45 Semi-Automatic when you pry it from my cold, dead, hand.