If you need more than a handgun for self defense I really think you're better off not trying to fight your home invaders.
In most cases you probably won't, but the government has no right to make that decision for you so long as you don't have mental health issues or criminal background. We probably don't need to spend as much time on the computer, but I'm not going to let the government make that decision for me either.
Thinking that possessing guns will 'keep the government in check' is almost laughable to be honest.
It's "the right to bear arms" which is all kinds of weaponry, not just handguns and hunting rifles. In theory the "shall not be infringed" clause would allow law abiding billionaires to privately own anything the military has access to, but in the modern world you can't just give anyone access to the latest technological secrets. In the rare event that there was a second civil war, the entirety of the armed forces wouldn't be backing the same side so that isn't an issue.
The fact a country that has stricter gun control laws happens to have a higher violent crime rate does in no way mean that 'having guns is better'.
Right. My point is not that increasing guns reduces crime (though this may be true), but that removing them hasn't proven effective either. Chicago has the strictest gun control laws and the country, and
surprisingly is one of if not the most violent cities in the country.
Everyone gets so butthurt over these mass shootings, but looking at it objectively I really don't care because far more people were killed by drunk drivers just last month than in the past 3 mass shootings. So why isn't the government going after alcohol? Because they don't gain any power by taking the beer off the shelves. The government would rather be politically correct by declaring the Ft Hood massacre as
workplace violence instead of an act of terror (as a result the victims weren't eligible for purple hearts), so they obviously care more about their agenda than the actual victims.