A little honesty on both sides might go a long way. Frankly it is not sensible to point to the need to hunt for food as a justification for possession of firearms. Mankind evolved out of the "hunter-gatherer" stage many centuries ago. But equally the "ban guns and gun-related crime will stop" argument is not on the level.

It is trite that one man's freedom may impinge on another's. THe central issue here is the legitimacy of the resort to force - whether with a gun, or another weapon, or even the inherent power of a majority to oppress a minority in a democracy. I suggest that the measure to apply is the risk of wrong you create.

Take away firearms and you leave the physically strong (or the mob-handed) as empowered, or almost as empowered, as the armed used to be. But how much ahve you harmed the disempowered?

Think before you kneejerk.

Think about why the kids at Columbine might have felt oppressed. THink about the fact that the effectiv e power rstructure there left them hopeless. THink about what would have happened to TOny Martin if he tried to stop 3 burglars with 114 (yes114) convictions between them without a gun.