For me, the whole 'take the guns away' is rather silly, as the focus only applies to law abiding citizens, not to criminals, and not to agents of the current government.

Govts often act in ways contrary to the wishes of the population, so (even if it were possible, which it is not) how can they be trusted to provide the mythical levels of personal protection that would be needed if individual citizens were to give up that responsibility?

The gun grabbers lobbies work like any other - on emotional persuasion, not facts and figures and reality. (Some may actually believe what they say, but that doesn't help either, or legitimise their argument any more than telling me that I'll go to hell if I don't go to church on Sunday)

I'll take a stab at another example - I won't do any research either, but bear with me: I'd guess that cigarettes kill a lot more people each year than guns (no, let's not start debating cigs either. The links between cigs and death are obvious, for smokers and innocent passive smokers alike, including their children and bystanders). But have cigs been banned? No. In Australia, they get taxed heavily, and a lot of money is spent telling people how silly they are. But the means of death - the money making cig - remains. I'd like the gun grabber lobbies to tell me what the difference is between these and guns, and why one should be banned and one not...as it stands, my health is constantly at risk when I venture into any public place, from cigarettes...