[cobrausn]

Your average street thug would not be able to get a gun very easily, probably. Then again, neither would your average citizen, so they wouldn't need them. When your victims are unarmed, all you need to be is bigger and stronger than they are. Or bring a knife. Or a friend. Two on one with no guns involved is usually a foregone conclusion.

More relevant, are you honestly saying that organizations such as drug cartels, which have been known to make catapults, submarines, and whatever else they need as they need it, would be incapable of making firearms? The plans for many firearms are openly available and all it requires is some machining equipment (soon probably just 3d printing ability), and a lot are made outside the US. Taurus firearms, for example, are all made in Brazil. Do you think a suddenly growing underground market for weapons in the US would go untapped?

Not only that, the US has approximately 90 guns per 100 people. How long do you think it would take for all those to be 'destroyed'?

In short, you would gladly disarm law-abiding citizens, of which nearly all US gun owners are, so you can feel a bit safer, or perhaps feel as though you live in a country or state that is a bit more 'progressive'? How would you feel when one of those disarmed people is stabbed to death when the cops don't reach them in time? How would you feel when a woman is raped because she had no chance of fending off someone twice her size? Is it worth the tradeoff to you?

To me, the thought of people being forcibly disarmed and then assaulted or murdered with little to no ability to defend themselves is much more egregious than allowing people the freedom to defend themselves with the best tool for the job and dealing with the consequences of having outliers who abuse the right - and make no mistake, they are outliers - violent crime rates have been on the decline in the US for over a decade. But that isn't even the real point of the 2nd amendment, which is a conversation for another time.

[lutorm]

How would you feel when...

If we're going to argue hypotheticals, how would you feel if one of those people instead of just having their wallet taken pulls out a gun and ends up getting shot? Or shoots an innocent bystander by accident? Or the kid who gets his hands on Daddy's gun and accidentally shoots himself or a friend?

You talk about outliers, but it's not obvious to me which are the most common outliers. It seems to me that pretty much every mass shooting (the one this week in Oakland, Congresswoman Giffords, Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc) have one thing in common: they were not perpetrated by people who would be characterized as "criminals" before the act, but by normal/unstable people who flipped and if they had not had easy access to guns the outcome would likely have been very different.

[cobrausn]

In response to your first argument - simple. Punish the crime where applicable and move on. In my examples, you have effectively tied a person's hands by banning the use of firearms, and now they are dead because of it. They had no chance because you wanted to feel safer. In your example, I merely enable people to act rationally and in their best interest by allowing them to own a firearm for their defense and the defense of others - this sometimes goes wrong, as people do not always act rationally. I don't feel bad about that, as they are responsible for their actions, not me, much in the same way I don't feel bad about owning a vehicle when someone drives theirs through a crowded market.

In response to your second argument, we can go on about that all day as to who is capable of evil and who is not (the answer is probably everyone). My point still stands - violent crime is on the decline, and no amount of hyping up the (relatively) few deaths that occur per year due to some 'random crazy guy with a gun' is going to change that fact. Most gun violence is drug related.

In the end, this argument comes down to a principle. Are you willing to try and disarm everyone to make a 'safer' society, even though you know that in doing so you are basically denying people the right to defend themselves, saying that their death is necessary to prevent the death of many more (maybe) and a generally safer society (arguably)? Or are you willing to give people the ability to purchase weapons from a legal (regulated) market to defend their lives, knowing that, in the end, the police can't be everywhere and can't save everyone?

Both have pros and cons, but I find the first option to be a particular form of collective restraint against the freedom of the individual that is morally unacceptable. Your mileage may vary.

[talmand]

If we're going to argue hypotheticals, what would have been the outcome if the lone nut had decided to drop some highly potent poison in to the local water supply?

Also, to point out one common thread with your examples of mass shootings, they took place in areas where it is illegal to have a weapon in your possession. Maybe not the Giffords example since I don't know the local laws about possessing a firearm in the presence of an elected official. But the key is they tend to target an area where they know people are not allowed to possess a firearm for defense, by law.

[lutorm]

... they took place in areas where it is illegal to have a weapon in your possession. Maybe not the Giffords example...

You're right about the Giffords example. In fact, one of the attendees did have a handgun, but that did nothing to help the situation. He (wisely, one would argue) kept it in his pocket since a) he could not figure out who was shooting, and b) even if he had, he would not have been able to do anything without hitting bystanders, and c) if he had pulled the gun out, the likelihood of someone else around with a gun mistaking him for the primary shooter would leave a significant risk of him getting shot by mistake.