Freebase Dali

The problem is that if law-abiding citizens can't get access to guns, then they can't protect themselves from those who obtain guns illegally.
People seem to think that the moment guns are deemed illegal, they suddenly disappear from existence and criminals go "Oh well. Guess I'll just straighten out my act now that I can't get a gun!"

It's not about deserving a gun. It's about deserving a fighting chance in a world where it's impossible to level the playing field. And beyond that, it's about being able to protect yourself and your family even if the criminal doesn't have a gun. A person can't be expected to physically overpower a threat in all situations, nor should they be mandated to do so when the opposing force is not playing by the same rules. All that creates is a higher potential for victimization.

Also, a lot of crime is likely dissuaded by the deterrent factor of guns alone. Now add to the equation the absolute certainty that no law-abiding citizen owns a gun and it's not hard to see how a criminal would be emboldened with the knowledge that, for instance, the home he's about to invade has nothing more deadly than a fireplace poker.

Obviously, guns = gun violence. That's the toughest part of all this because it means that to reduce (we will never eliminate) gun violence against innocent, law abiding citizens by removing guns from the equation, we have to simultaneously decrease their ability to protect themselves in the most effective way.
If you ask me whether it's worth it, I gotta say no, because it is quite literally the restriction of the very basic human right to protect yourself. This obviously wouldn't be an issue if there were no such thing as guns, but there are, and they're not going anywhere regardless of what America legislates.

This is the core of the value (most of the people I know) place in the constitutionality of gun ownership. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's on a founding document. That would be asinine. It has to do with the fact that the document legally recognizes the right of people to use arms to protect themselves from those who would oppress them. Now, in context with today's world, that really translates to protecting yourself from those abusing their power over you violently, thus, those with whatever means required that effectively limits your chance of not having their will violently and oppressively forced upon you at risk of your safety.
I do not understand how there are actually people out there that think we enjoy this right simply because a piece of paper says so. People on both sides of that are idiots. It's important because it limits the ability of government to take away the ability of innocent people to protect their own lives and those of their families. This is not something that should ever be taken away, regardless of the statistics, and to suggest otherwise is both ignorant and naive if people actually think that's a good thing because less school shootings turn up as a result of such a thing.

The real question is why there wasn't an armed guard at the school, or why we don't protect our children's schools with them as a default. I bet if there had been one and he had prevented this, there would be a lot of "hero" and "thanks" phrases being thrown around by a bunch of the same people that lobby against guns to begin with. People protecting other people with guns usually doesn't get reported very often, though, so I don't expect most people to come across something like that often enough to adjust their biases enough to see through a different lens.