The Four Color Media Monitor

Great post, it seems Slott really lacks any standing in his argument. Why don't we educate people to use guns properly to reduce accidents. Do we not teach people how to drive? His whole system of logic is flawed. For the record I live at least 10 minutes from the police being able to get to my home should I ask a killer to wait so the police should come? What if their are multiple people breaking in my home (many times it is at least 2 people), I would rather my wife have an assault rifle that she can shoot more accurately with than an shotgun that kicks her back after each shot.
How about my right to protect my family from idiots like Dan Slott.

These days, 10 minutes is a pretty good response time for an emergency call. In Detroit, the average is 58 minutes. Cops sometimes joke about "Call 911, then call Dominoes and order a pizza, then see who gets there first."

No one is simply proposing "more guns" as a solution. The NRA (and 76% of cops surveyed by the police-only website PoliceOne.com) have advocated having armed guards in schools, and/or arming school staff members who are properly trained and qualified. (My understanding is that the volunteers who guard Israeli schools are trained by the police or the army; of course, most Israeli civilians are veterans who trained with firearms when they served in the IDF.)

If you wanted to commit mass murder, what might deter you? A sign that said "No guns allowed," or one that said "Staff members are armed and will use force if necessary"?

"If 'criminals don't obey laws' is an argument for NOT passing any new/sensible laws, then why have ANY laws in the first place?"

"Criminals don't obey laws" is an argument for better enforcement of the existing laws, instead of passing new ones. We already have laws against criminals and mentally ill people owning weapons of any kind. "New/sensible laws" would just extend those bans to include sane, competent, peaceable, honest citizens. The kind of people who don't commit crimes anyway.

"How many gun deaths a day is acceptable?" If even one innocent person is murdered, or accidentally shot, it's too many. But it's no more tragic than someone stabbed to death by a mugger, or beaten to death by thugs playing the "knockout game," or run over by a reckless driver.

More children drown in swimming pools than get shot. But no one proposes a ban on swimming pools, or even "sensible laws" to regulate them. (Some cities and counties have local ordinances requiring that pools be surrounded by fences. But I know of no federal or even state laws on the subject.)

More people are killed or injured in car accidents than in shootings. But no one proposes "reasonable limits," like a law against civilians owning cars that can go faster than 40 MPH. And no one suggests a "may issue" system for cars (like New York already has for guns), where a person would have to get a license to own a car, and would have to prove a valid need in order to qualify for the license (e.g., you can't use public transportation because your job site is not on the bus line). (And, even then, if we use New York's gun permit system as the model, the applicant could still be refused a license just because the local police chief doesn't like his face.)

And swimming pools have no benefit except for the enjoyment that their owners get from them. And some people need cars or trucks, but many people own them just because they are more convenient than public transportation. With guns, you need to weigh the 15,000 murders, accidents, and suicides a year against the 800,000+ (some surveys say over one million) cases of lives that were saved because armed citizens were able to defend themselves and their families against violent criminals.