[sofixa]

> The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage.

That's some crazy logic. A "good guy" doesn't mean a person capable of making the right decisions in front of a bad guy. Would they be able to deescalate? Would they shoot an innocent bystander? Would they shoot another good guy mistaking them for a bad guy?

The correct path forward is to educate and reduce the amount of guns, not give more out on the off chance a good guy happens to be there where something bad happens, while simultaneously increasing the risk a heated exchange/rage fit/whatever escalates to a gunfight.

[foolinaround]

in todays society, i look as guns not as a good, but as a necessary evil, needed to protect the weak from the strong, and level the playing field in a physical situation ( not ideal, but can't be wished away either)

For this reason, the gun ownership needs to increase among the traditionally weaker classes ( women, minorities ) who currently are at threat.