I'm willing to throw a bit more fuel on the fire.

I've owned, over my life, a shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun. I only used them for target shooting, don't see any compelling need for any of them, and no longer own any of them.

I, personally, see a strong need to hunt my own meat - that supplied by the supermarkets is pumped full of antibiotics, hormones, and other nasties I don't care to have in my body. However, I don't believe I need a gun to hunt - a bow or crossbow does just fine, thank you.

As stated above, the feeling of being invincible once you start carrying a gun is a dangerous thing. If someone were to pull a pistol on me, and I pull mine out too, we shoot each other, does that stop the violent crime? And would the cockiness that goes along with knowing you can "defend yourself" possibly prompt a confrontation that might not have otherwise occured?

It seems that everyone wants to regulate guns in one way or another, but no one seems to hit what I think is the strongest point - a background check doesn't tell you if the purchaser knows how to safely handle a gun. The venetian blind is a case in point. The people who scare me are the ones who own a gun(s) but haven't the slightest bit of knowledge of them. I won't be around those people - I've had too many guns accidentally pointed in my direction.

I spend a lot of time around the ER at our local hospital. I saw many more deaths from car accidents than I ever did from gunshots. To say that a gun is dangerous is ridiculous - a gun is only a tool, like cars, knives, computers, fire, sledgehammers. It is irresponsible people who are dangerous. And not just with guns, e.g. people who drive after they've had even 1 drink. You can harm (kill) people with any of the above named implements, but only cars are regulated in any way.

If you want to quote statistics on murder and try to compare them with stats on guns, you should at least use the figures on murder by gunshot.