We should probably look at Australia as an example. Election polling or census questions located those who owned guns. The government passed laws to forbid gun ownership by private citizens. Armed with names of those who admitted to owning guns, the government required these and others to surrender their guns. As a result possibly, violent crime has increased. Conversely, look at Kenesaw Georgia where a gun is required in every household. Crime stats have dropped significantly.
When examining the constitutional wording that led to passage of the amendment that allows citizen ownership of guns, it seems to me we must look at the spirit of the letter, rather than the close scrutiny of the wording. We can assume all day long what was intended as interpretation, but given that America was fresh off the heels (and pretty much established as a result ) of a monarchy in which the people had few, if any rights, it was probably intended to be interpreted as citizens having some measure of defense against those attempting to duplicate the situation our then citizens had escaped.
How does that work now? If the government wants to get us then they will get to us without any problem. They have superior fire and manpower, as well as little chance for retaliation or legal action. However, since it is not nearly as likely as violent criminals coming to get us in our home, we can rest easy in the reality that while we may not be able to individually defend against governmental tyranny, we can defend ourselves against those who would violate our freedom to live in a free society. How can someone restrict the right of a law abiding citizen?
I state again, what are you going to do when the bad guys come...throw rocks? You better be able to throw them at least in the neighborhood of 1200 feet per second which would put you on par with the speed the bad guys will probably be throwing lead. Would you expect your wife or mom to be able to use a non firearm weapon, or even her bare hands against an enraged attacker to the extent that she would be able to go toe to toe on equal ground? This is not a rule as much as it is the general situation. I sleep better at night knowing that my wife is armed to the teeth and will not hesitate to kick someone off the planet with a centershot to the chest and one in the head if they try and harm our family.
It is strange to me that some of the same people who believe we should have freedom to have abortions and terminate a life, since it is a personal choice, but yet, that we are not responsible enough to terminate a life that is violently and criminally threatening ours and our families. I happen to agree with free choice, as it is in my opinion, responsibility that can usually be handled properly. Nonetheless, it is ironic to me that we should be able give life as we choose--as well as destroy unborn humans--but not take it from those who would place ours in jeopardy.
It is also strange to me that anyone professing to be a fighter for the freedom and equality of all American citizens can want to jeopardize their individual right to the American Dream by limiting the ability of those same citizens to resist with necessary force those who would happily take it from us in their own criminal quest. The best quote I have ever heard from the gun supporters: God created men, Samuel Colt made them equal.
If we can limit the stats to one group for a moment: how many licensed Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) owners have been convicted of carrying out violent crime?