Replies

On the other hand, there’s no way of denying that the right to bear arms (i.e.: a pistol or revolver) brings its own grave dangers with it, think of the tragedies that happened at U.S. high schools in recent years. They surely are linked to that right to bear arms.

They are linked to the fact that the perpetrators "bore arms", whether they should have or not. Criminals will get guns whether they are illegal or not, so their crimes aren't really related to that right.

It's the law-abiding who are affected by laws. They are the ones who are disarmed by anti-gun laws. It's because of those laws that there are more victims for the criminals to attack and kill without fear of an effective defense.

Had there been more armed citizens, each of those school shooting tragedies could have ended much more quickly, with fewer victims.

Imagine if some of the teachers in those schools were qualified and allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Can you see how the outcome could have been so much better? When only the police have effective defense against a gunman, then he knows he has lots of time to claim numerous lives before anyone will be able to stop him.

So: I don’t really see a great advantage in widespread carrying of guns, because many people can go off the deep end by one of life’s many possible tragedies, and then go on a killing spree.

Exactly. That's precisely why there is an advantage to more widespread carrying of guns!

The bad guys will get their weapons in spite of the law, and more guns in the hands of the good guys mean it's more likely the bad guys will be stopped more quickly, or that they won't even attempt their crimes because of the higher likelihood of being shot in the process.

In the USA, at least, the areas with the strongest anti-gun laws are mostly the ones with the highest gun-related crime. Those laws don't stop the criminals.