Whoa. Right there he's implying he thinks there may not be but he's "willing" to spot us that one. How nice. This tells me right up front this guy is a disconnected fruit.
... this does not necessarily mean the right to own a gun. There will always be limit to the expression of this right that would include a whole range of military hardware; even Grudem recognises that the private ownership of a "machine gun or anti-tank rocket launcher or an anti-aircraft missile launcher" are unnecessary.
Reductio ad absurdum much?
The counter argument of course is that it could make gun violence more likely as attackers could increasingly assume their victims are armed...
Or, instead of assuming you could look at facts and find just the opposite is true. When would-be criminals believe their victims may be armed, crime rates fall. When strict gun control is enacted and would-be criminals realize their potential victims are relatively defenseless, violent crime increases. This has been seen over and over again in virtually every single place that has enacted or repealed strict gun control.
... not to mention that increased gun ownership means increased gun accidents.
Or not. Accidents usually stem from lack of training, people doing stupid things with firearms. Increasing peoples' exposure-to and training-with firearms reduces this risk.
But the counter arguments are, firstly, that if guns were more highly regulated then it would be a lot harder for potential mass murderers to get hold of guns in the first place.
Yeah, and if only illegal drugs were made, well, more illegal they would be a lot harder to come by too. {snort} This entire paragraph is based on an utterly false premise.
"Police officers go through hours of specialized training to help them discern when the use of deadly force is justified. As we know from not a few front-page tragedies involving police shootings, despite such rigorous training, even the best-trained officers don't always get it right.
Ah, a variation on the appeal to authority fallacy. Even the police get it wrong. Yes, they do. They are human, so are the rest of us. Which would you rather have, a helpless victim, or at least the chance of getting it right? Actual statistics show that you are more likely to be accidentally wounded by police during an armed response to a shooting incident than you are by an armed private citizen intervening. Honestly that one was a surprise to me too, but the facts don't lie.
I believe that an argument can be made for the ownership of guns for sporting and recreational purposes, with the requisite licensing and monitoring.
Oh how nice of you to deign to allow us to exercise our rights - as long as you have enough control. Jack**s.
Then he launches into a completely apples and oranges comparison with Canada, not even citing similar numbers. Muddled thinking is, well, muddled thinking I guess.
In short, this guy is an idiot. Not name calling, he really is an idiot.
“Then he launches into a completely apples and oranges comparison with Canada, not even citing similar numbers.”
The very, very, Negro population in Canada is why.