Re: Easy Solution
I am going to allow myself to be sidetracked, here, although much of what I said can apply to this article as well.
All laws need to be analysed to ensure that any bad aspects are balanced against the good, and the good outweighs the bad. In the case of the right to bear arms, I believe the bad far outweighs the bad.
In the US, there are approx 6 homicides/yr per 100,000 population, and approx 60% of those are by firearms. So that would put approx. 2.4/yr/100k for non-firearm homicides.
In the UK, with much stricter gun controls, we have a rate of 1.6/yr/100k, which is on the same scale as the US non-firearm figures.
In the end, a gun makes it much easier for one person to kill another. Many cite reasons such as protection of self from criminals, but all these pale into insignificance compared to the misery caused, many of which would not have happened if the perpetrator did not have a gun.
As for protecting yourself from the govt, this is ridiculous. The govt will always have more firepower than any civilian, or even civilian group. How many people come out on top when in a stand off with armed police, let alone the armed forces? If you try to use firearms to protect yourself from the government, the government will bring in more firearms, and you will loose.