I smirk when I hear the hippie gun nuts whining about their rights being violated whenever there's a debate about the right to possess firearms. It's a ridiculous and outdated right to start with. Nowadays, you don't live in fear of Indians attacking your house or you don't have to defend your lands from vagabond looters. There's police to protect you.
Still, there's people who would like to have a gun. Most of them are wimps who only feel powerful when they hold a piece. Some are hunters, but that's only a handful. Almost every gun owner got their fire arm to feel bad ass and intimidate other people. Many use arguments that it's for their safety and it's to defend themselves from criminals. But is it?
Scientists say that protecting yourself with a gun is not effective as using, for example, mace or even a pepper spray. Why? Because it takes time to unholster the gun and another flick of a second to remove the safety... and then what? You have to point the gun at your opponent, which takes another moment. I'd say, a defensless woman defending from a street thug that pulls a knife on her would have to put her hand into the purse, FIND THE GUN THERE, aaaaand.... there goes the knife stabbing at her way. It would be much faster to put your hand into the pocket and spray the criminal in the eyes, but no, the gun nuts know better. It's for protection!
Let's look at the other aspects of having a gun. Most gun owners are irresponsible. There was many accidents involving children where a curious kid shot his or her brains out with their daddy's gun because he put it on the bed. For example the famous case of Colonel Jonathan 'Jack' O'Neil from Stargate. His son shot himself. And O'Neil was a soldier! Imagine a civilian having a gun in the apartment.
Another argument against gun nuts is that shooting someone is not the best idea for defense, because you hurt them. If you claim you need the gun for protection, why do you need to pose a threat? If you shoot someone in the head or damage an artery, you'll most probably kill your opponent. Why risk that in the era of tasers? Another thing is, tasers are much more effective than gun shots, since they paralyse the opponents and prevent them from stabbing you. Studies show that sometimes people don't even feel they got hit by a bullet.
I think that the best idea here is to only allow the military and the police to have firearms. That's going to prevent some immature jack asses from shooting somebody. If you know someone who's a gun owner, be careful around them because they are most likely mentally instable. Most gun owners compensate for their complexes (for example a small penis) with a gun. Majority of gun owners were bullied when they were younger and a gun offers them some kind of a feeling of power. That doesn't give them the right to pose threat to other members of the society. I think there's no place for debate here, because all guns should be illegal for civilian use, unless it's hunting or in desolate places where there's no police around and there might be wild animals around. Other than that, the only person who should be allowed to carry a fire arm is a responsible person. A trained professional like a soldier or a police officer.