[Cboldt]

Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families."

This type of lie makes me laugh too, because it is common and because many people fall for it. The leap of logic that people are invited to make is that a "rate of increase" is equivalent to greater numbers.

Aside from the statistical error, the action bias the writer is attempting to instill is to not defend yourself or present any resistance, because doing so is risky. By all means, if you have no intention to defend yourself, I concur with the conclusion, don't carry means to defend yourself.

[Robert Teesdale]

What it really comes down to, however, is not statistics or law or science or other forms of discourse. It comes down to action and response on a single point of interest:

If the State attempts to disarm the citizens, what will happen?

The answer, quite simply, is that the citizens will start aggressively killing agents of the State.

At that point, the State will either surrender and resume its rightful place as the servant of the People, or it will press its case and cause revolution.

Following revolution, there will either be restored liberty or totalitarian butchery followed by national death.

I appreciate the varied motivations of the hoplophobes. I really do. Feelings are not facts, however. The simple fact is that if civilian disarmament is pursued past a certain point it will result in blood and death on a wide scale in addition to existential social unrest.