I know you can probably name several obligations the state, any and every state or form of government, has to serve it's citizens that it does not fulfill. The proliferation of personal arms possessed by law abiding citizens--the only people that obey laws to not possess firearms--does not cause harm. Ever.

In every case in which a firearm causes harm, the law has been violated. I do not count the wounding or killing of criminals as harm, but rather as a good. Preventing their crimes is a good thing, and preventing them from committing crimes in the future by killing them is a good thing too. Also, some laws are unjust and cause harm. This is not the fault of citizens, or firearms, and only just law can be considered as law. Unjust laws aren't lawful at all.

In fact the opposite is true. The better armed law abiding citizens are, the safer and more peaceful their communities are, because criminals are less able to commit crimes against them. Especially the criminals with badges or titles.

Laws do not affect what criminals do. They're criminals. By definition, they don't obey laws.

If you can think of a way that criminals can be prevented from obtaining and using weapons by any form or kind of law, I will personally nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize, because you will have devised something that has never before existed in the universe.

Do think beyond rhetoric to the actual effects the words have.

Otherwise, let's just pass a law that makes it illegal to be sad, or poor, so everyone will be happy and rich.

Thimk.