IMO, the absolute folly (the absurdity!) of the idea that disarming all citizens will "protect the people" from harm can best be seen in microcosm:
Suppose you were living in a "roommate" situation with 6 people in a very large home. Suppose further that 3 of the people in this situation "had guns" (one fellow was a good man and an avid hunter; another fellow likewise was also a good responsible chap--who happened to be an excellent target marksman--and yet the 3rd gun owner was an angry, withdrawn social misfit who had an evil heart and a propensity towards violence). The other 3 roommates (one of whom was you) were also good folks who, of their own volition, chose not to have guns.
Suppose one day, in a fit of rage, the violent roommate put his pistol to your head and threatens your life. After this scenario came to pass, you and the remaining 4 good
roommates got together to decide what you all needed to "do" about this situation. What do you think would be the most effective, intelligent decision?:
1) To get rid of "the guns," disarming even the good gun owners, while leaving the violent roommate still among you
2) To get rid of the violent roommate
Anyone can easily see that if the group chose 1, the next time the angry, violent roommate "got angry," he could pull a steak knife out of the drawer and stab a fellow roommate. What should the group do after that, "vote" to remove all knives, sharp objects, scissors, forks and any other cutting tools from the premises? Should "the group" be totally inconvenienced as a "smart strategy" to protect themselves from the one nut? Hell, the next time the angry roommate had another fit, he could reach for a blunt object, a fire poker (strangle someone with a piece of clothing or whatever), or beat one of his fellows with a bat over a disagreement.
Again, when looked at in microcosm, the idea that disarming the innocent 5
as an effective means to "be safe" from the evil aberrant can be seen as absolutely asinine (stupid beyond belief!). And yet people still
can't see that it is precisely the same absurdity to try to pass legislation to "disarm all citizens" as an effective means of protection from those who have a propensity towards evil
The intelligent person can clearly see that it is those who have a propensity towards evil who need to be eliminated
all the guns (knives, forks, baseball bats, scissors, etc., etc., etc.)
PS: I promise not to say anything more after this