this is not he case in reality. Usually guns lead to a much higher chance of innocent people being hurt.
This alone refutes all arguments of protection.
If there were no guns at all, this
could very well be true. However, there are guns.
If you prohibit guns, criminals will still get their hands on them. The only people who won't have guns are the good law abiding citizens.
The best way to combat gun wielding criminals is to keep them in check by allowing the citizens to arm themselves with guns as well.
I can go to any gun free zone, such as a college, and kill a large number of people who are unarmed. If I go to a restaurant where law abiding citizens carry fire arms, I will be lucky to kill a single person, let alone survive.
Can a disaster erupt in such a situation though? Could a person pull a gun out in a restaurant filled with armed men and cause trouble? Of course! But this is unlikely for a number of reasons.
1. Human beings generally fear death. If you want to kill someone, you're most likely going to do so with the assumption you will live. Even if you are aware you might be killed, there are certain risks you won't take. The chances you will live pulling a gun on someone in a restaurant full of armed civilians? Slim.
2. If someone goes into a restaurant simply because they want to kill, they are going to kill as many people as possible before the police come. With armed citizens, the number of people harmed will be lower. This is assuming the offender is only trying to kill. It is more likely they will try to rob the restaurant. In this case, there will generally be even less casualties considering most robbers will not kill more people than they absolutely have to (giving everyone else more time to prepare a counter measure).
But again, this is all highly unlikely.
Protection should come with society growing up and becoming responsible.
Let's assume there are 100 people in a community. Some of them have guns, but they all decide guns are evil and they all throw their guns away. Later, 1 person gets their hand on a gun and decides he can rob the other 99 people with little worry, because none of them are armed.
Here's the kicker, if 99 people felt guns were evil, then they are probably responsible enough to own guns in the first place. This means that those who have guns could keep them, and simply not kill anyone. This would allow them to defend each other, or at least themselves, from the one nut job out there.
Protection should come with society growing up and becoming responsible.
If all of society was responsible enough to get rid of guns as to not kill each other, they are responsible enough to own guns without using them on each other.
If everyone in this thread were at a restaurant together and someone decided to pull a gun out, would you rather the people around you be armed or unarmed?
In a society where people already own guns, such prohibition is greatly unrealistic. In a society that started off with gun prohibition, well, good luck keeping guns out.
