For one thing, defensive firearms are meant to be “equalizers,” force multipliers that can allow one good person to defend against multiple evil people. To allow one good person to defend against a single evil person so much stronger and/or bigger and/or more violent than he or she, that the attacker’s potentially lethal assault can be stopped. History shows that it often takes many gunshots to stop even a single determined aggressor. Most police officers have seen the famous autopsy photo in the cops-only text book “Street Survival” of the armed robber who soaked up 33 police 9mm bullets before he stopped trying to kill the officers. Consider Lance Thomas, the Los Angeles area watch shop owner who was in many shootouts with multiple gang bangers who tried to rob and murder him. He shot several of them, and discovered that it took so many hits to stop them that he placed multiple loaded handguns every few feet along his workbench. That’s not possible in a home, or when lawfully carrying concealed on the street: a semiautomatic pistol with a substantial cartridge capacity makes much more sense for that defensive application.
Massad Ayoob – Why Good People Need Semiautomatic Firearms and “High Capacity” Magazines
December 29th, 2012
[First it's worth reading the whole thing. My usual response currently about why do you "need" currently is, "It's a bill of rights not a bill of needs." Massad does a fantastic job of destroying their "need" argument. As Massad points out: If semiautomatic rifles and pistols with high-capacity magazines are so ineffective for defense, why do police carry them? If all they can do is aid in criminal activity, why are the police allowed access?
Our opponents will admit a gun in the right hands is a net positive. They will not argue to disarm representatives of the state. So how does taking a firearm from an innocent law-abiding citizen, the right hands, fix the negative of criminals gaining possession.
Ultimately gun control has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with control. Crime has been decreasing even with an increase in firearms ownership in America. There is no causation despite what they claim. Never mind that the numbers say this is quite unlikely to occur. That isn't to say it isn't a tragedy, it's just not worth throwing freedom and liberty away for ineffective measures to try to stop a statistically unlikely event.
So in the end, why would anyone want to limit access to that effective equalizer? -B]