Eder said:
There are other variables to consider - as you've argued yourself, for god's sake.
Yes, indeed. But each of those variables works on a different level, and none of them change the fact that the remaining variables are still in effect - and that obviously includes the gun variable.
Variable #1 - guns - costs nothing financially. In fact, by allowing people to own guns, you're saving tons of money which would otherwise be lost trying to prevent ordinary people from obtaining guns illegally (because ordinary people, just like criminals, will also be willing to break the law to get illegal firearms under some circumstances, usually when their lives or the lives of their family depend on it). Of course, legalising gun possession is likely to have some political impact, but nowhere near as much as #3 and #4 - no one is going to stop trading with your country just because of that.
Variable #2 - police - hugely expensive. There is no country in the world that has a bad police force
on purpose - and yet, most countries in the world have a bad police force. This is also because, as the court ruling pointed out by Death indicates, the job of the police is not intervention, it's prevention and uh... postvention?
The police simply cannot be everywhere at once, so unless you live in a police station, you have almost no chance of seeing a police officer help you if somebody attacks you.
Variable #3 - death penalty - costs big-time. Sadly, most countries today cannot afford this, even though logically it should be a money-saver (a bullet is cheaper than twenty-five years of food and lodgings for criminals). Why? Because unless you're a significant, global economic power, the re-introduction of the death penalty is likely to bring down an economic embargo upon your country, and even if things don't go quite that far, it's really not helpful when all of Europe refuses to speak to you (Brazil would probably get away with it, because it's a huge market - this is mainly Poland I'm speaking about).
Variable #4 - making prisons hell - again, should be a money-saver. But again, today's political climate would make this a bad step. Ironically, as I understand it, Brazil's already managed to do it already
- but as Brazil's example shows this step is actually counter-productive if you do not also have a security force sufficient to keep the captured criminals
in prison. This was also the case in PNG - it often took weeks for escaped criminals (usually armed with weapons from subdued prison guards) to be recaptured, in many cases with several civilian and police deaths along the way.
I believe the above demonstrates at least to a limited degree why in many cases, legalising gun possession is the only thing a country really can do to protect its citizens in today's world. I believe this also makes it the only thing that citizens can obtain by applying pressure on the government. I mean, you can't really pressure the government into improving the police force... because all governments, by definition, are trying to have the best police force possible, and it's not for lack of trying that they fail to achieve this goal.
But, the above point is mainly an aside, because I believe that there is no reasonable argument out there
against legalised gun possession. The right to bear arms stands firmly on its own two feet as the only sensible option, for the following reasons (which mostly have already been mentioned in this thread, but still bear repeating):
1. Outlawing guns does not prevent people from having them. Criminals will still be able to obtain them, because - just like with illegal drugs - basic economic laws insist that as long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. So, outlawing guns...
2. ...Only prevents honest citizens from legally owning guns. So, if somebody wishes to defend himself with firearms, you are preventing him from doing so - while at the same time, you are unable to prevent his attackers from bearing firearms. This is not reasonable - it makes you an indirect accessory to murder. Meanwhile, if firearms are legal...
3. The choice is in the hands of the individual. If you normally only carry twenty bucks in your wallet, you don't need to take a gun with you. That 75-year old grandma, if she doesn't feel she can use the gun for her own safety, is not being forced to own a gun. And, like with cars, most people are sane enough to assess their ability to handle such things. Most people also have family that will advise them in the matter. And...
4. ...Yes, without a doubt, some people will still die while trying to use firearms to defend themselves, and yes, by legalising gun ownership, you will be responsible for their deaths. The argument against this is the same as the argument I use when talking to people who oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it kills innocent people. You are faced with only two choices, one of which means you killing two innocent people, while the other means you doing nothing to prevent the death of ten innocent people. The latter choice may very well seem more moral at first glance - but once you are aware of the fact that your inaction has resulted in more deaths than you directly killing a few people would, you realise that you are in fact responsible for those additional deaths. So, you're choosing between being responsible for a few innocent deaths, or a lot of innocent deaths. Neither choice is pleasant, but you still must choose one of them.
5. By outlawing gun ownership, you are assuming that most people are incapable of making the right decision in regard to gun ownership and/or usage. Such assumptions are always self-fulfilling prophecies - if you treat people like idiots, they will become idiots. Similarly, most people today are incapable of saving money for their retirement, because governments assumed at some point that people are incapable of saving money for their retirement, and introduced compulsory retirement fund schemes... even though people had successfully done so for hundreds of thousands of years. It's plain and simple atrophy - an unused muscle will lose strength and eventually vanish altogether. And it is not wise to deprive people of the ability to defend themselves.
To sum up in one brief sentence - by outlawing gun ownership, you are depriving of guns everyone who would use them responsibly, without depriving of guns those who use them to harm others.
(and as for the no-gun-sign-on-the-door thing - the point is, it's completely unnatural for any living creature to advertise its defencelessness. Being defenceless does not mean that you will be attacked, especially if there are others out there that might defend you - but it certainly is a hugely risky thing to advertise; it is always better to at least give potential attackers some doubts about the degree to which you can defend yourself than to reveal your complete defencelessness)
.