The issue I have with most gun advocates is their propensity to frame the issue in absolutes - the right to carry vs ban on guns:
"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"
"...intent was to ban all civilian ownership of handguns"
Most Americans dont support either extreme. Why do gun proponents continue to frame the argument in those terms?
Do they really believe that reasonable gun control is only the first step to banning guns? Where are the examples to support such a claim? As far as I can recall, there has not been a serious attempt to ban handguns (or sporting rifles) at the federal level in my lifetime and the one local ban (Wash DC) was ruled unconstitutional.
What is wrong with reasonable gun control (background checks, registration, closing gun show loopholes where anyone can buy, child protection locks, etc) that allows law abiding citizens to own guns but attempts to keep guns at out of the hands of criminals, mentally ill who might harms themselves or others, AND children.
Are laws like the Brady Bill perfect? Absolutely not. But there is not a doubt in my mind that it makes it more difficult for those who shouldnt have guns to obtain one.
It also doesnt prevent the killing of family members: 12.3% of the nearly 15,000 homicides in the US in 2005 were family members (the 22% figure cited earlier were of known victims; nearly half were unknown). Most were killed with guns. I dont see how these numbers are massaged, as some would claim.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offens...rtable_09.html
That is the tragic fact of having a gun in the home.