If we examine the heinous crimes in the past with the mass shootings, well one place person in the crowd with a weapon would probably pull it out and defend their lives if they had to. That's why we have these permits!. The shooter is probably looking to die anyway and he isn't going to spare you, with or without the gun. What do we have to lose by letting our citizens protect themselves from these crazies, within reason?

But how do you tell who's crazy and who isn't? Acquiring guns for safety is like fucking for virginity..

Your feeble attempt at an analogy leaves one to wonder what level of intelligence you might possess. Your choice of words speaks volumes. Owning/carrying a weapon for self defense of yourself or those around you is a responsibility and a right.

There were reasons why all the effective tyrants in history disarmed the public and rendered illegal the possession of firearms or munitions of any sort. Think about it. Who benefits when the public is toothless?

I am all for gun ownership! .

It is naive to think that by not allowing law abiding, sane citizens to carry weapons that somehow you are keeping the criminals from getting one. These people aren't using legal means all of the time for their weapons of choice!. Look at that Virginia Tech killer: legally obtained gun. The Columbine killers: questionable means of obtaining guns. Street gangs: Illegal means of obtaining guns. You might be able to keep the public from the guns, but not the ones who want to use them maliciously.

If and when anarchy reigns around this great country, the only ones you will be able to depend on for your safety will be people like me who are willing to take our personal firearms and defend your life at the possible cost of our own.

And they knew how to used their firearm (training and testing), then certain tragedies would not happen. People would look at murder a more of a risk. However, accident statistics would raise dramatically. Children getting into Daddy's guns.