"I'm simply saying I should have a right to own them. After all, we know that the weapon itself is harmless; it's just me that's dangerous, exactly the same as it is with guns. If you can say, "a gun is just a gun, it's the person who chooses to kill", then you can say the same for any weapon that requires a conscious decision to use it."

There's a big difference in a weapon that can kill millions and a weapon that usually won't kill one. There's about a 3% chance of dying from a gunshot would--it's not like most people who get shot die from it. The weapon itself is harmless without somebody using it to cause harm.

"It'd mean the authorities have more power to remove guns from more people. Just because someone's never been caught and convicted doesn't mean they've never been involved in crime. If guns are simply tougher to get, and there are more restrictions on who can own what, then it's easier overall for weapons to be taken away from those who intend to use them illegally."

Who intends to use them illegally? Who's call is it whether somebody "intends" to use a gun illegally or not? Even so, what grounds would they have to take the firearm away? The simple fact is, an extremely small percentage of gun-related crimes involve registered firearms.

I'd like to see a source for your "stastic". (If you want a source for mine, even though it's common sense, I'm sure I could find one.)

I can't imagine a SAFER climate to live in, than one where everyone you pass on the street could be carrying a loaded, concealed firearm. I'm sure I could also find the studies that have shown that when it becomes easier in an area to get concealed weapons permits, the violent crime rate goes down. Or, I could see what I could do to find crime statistics in places that require gun ownership in residencies compared to the surrounding areas--by the way, there are places that require by law the people there to own guns, and the crime rates there are much lower than those of their surrounding areas.

Here's a question for you--or anybody. If you were a criminal, and you were going to, say, rob a bank, hold up a convenience store, break into a house... You would very improbably be using a weapon that you bought legally and registered to yourself, you'd most likely be using one that you bought off the street, one with no registration on it. But anyway, back to the question. If you, using a gun that isn't legal, were planning to invade some type of place and steal things from it...would you prefer the people there to have guns, or would you prefer them to be completely unarmed?