Too bad for the gun control zealots who want to disarm law abiding citizens and leave them vulnerable to attacks from psychos and other criminals (after all, no psycho or criminal tends to be law abiding and therefore gun control laws will not deter them in the slightest; just look at how well the war on drugs has turned out in eliminating drugs and drug use), but as has been proven many times before, violent crime is deterred where ever there is the prospect of the victim being armed.
This is not merely an empirical result; it is a completely logical one that the reason-impaired choose not to accept.
After all, crime, like most other activities is a cost/benefit affair: what are the potential rewards for crime (whether these rewards are monetary, emotional or of any other value), and what are its chances of success and thus the potential cost of failure? Logical deduction makes clear that the larger the potential cost and the smaller the chance of success, the less likely a criminal will be to take a chance with his safety or even life. This does not mean that there will be no criminals taking chances with their safety; it does mean however that the amount of times criminals will take such chances will logically decrease.
The gun control zealots will, as they usually do, point to the various ‘accidents’ from firearm possession, but accidents are no good moral reason whatever to forcibly reduce or eliminate a right to own something. After all, many traffic related accidents and deaths occur yearly yet nobody has called for an elimination of automobiles.
Also, if a right to bear arms would not reduce crime, or cause tragic accidents and should be reduced or eliminated for that reason, then by what reason does society insist on police officers still having such a right? He may need it to fight crime and defend himself, but how is this different from the common civilian that is faced with a rapist, violent psycho or burglar? The difference between the two (police officer and civilian) is that the police officer is much more likely to be involved in situations where grave injury or death occur. Yet somehow it is the civilian that must be disarmed.
If gun control works, by what reason are the military and the police force still armed?
Note also, that where ever sociopaths go on killing sprees, the victims are much more likely to be unarmed, either by choice or by law. Yet somehow a sociopath’s actions against unarmed citizens, which are the result of the complete ignoring of, and uncaring about the law, spawns calls for ‘gun control’, when ‘gun control’ by choice or by law is precisely what left victims defenseless in the first place.
The libertarian perspective is simple: an individual, whose rights and liberties are supreme over that of any ‘group’ because it is the individual that thinks and acts, has a right to self ownership. This means that he must by definition have the right to protect that self ownership against any potential violator of that principle. Part of that self ownership is his material possessions because they are the result of his ownership of his actions as a consumer and/or producer. No other person should have the right to violate that self ownership therefore a government should not have the right to violate it either, by controlling or eliminating the means by which a person can protect his self ownership. By making an individual dependent on another person or group of persons for the protection of his self ownership, this right to self ownership is not only violated by default, it also deprives him of any effective means of such protection because it is conditional. The conditions being the efficiency, reliability, timeliness, trustworthiness, culpability, courage and numerous other characteristics of the person of group of persons that are then relied upon.