Okay, you want studies?“A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three US cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al., 1998). For those who don’t want to add, that is 22 people shot for every one defended.Here’s the source of that quote:http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.htmlFurthermore, there’s this from a Johns Hopkins study:“Although there is little difference in the overall crime rates between the United States and other high-income countries, the homicide rate in the U. S. is seven times higher than the combined homicide rate of 22 other high-income countries. This is because the firearm homicide rate in the U. S. is twenty times greater than in these other high-income countries. The higher prevalence of gun ownership and much less restrictive gun laws are important reasons why violent crime in the U. S. is so much more lethal than in countries of similar income levels.”That’s Webster, et al., 2009, and you can read the whole paper, including reasonable suggestions for gun laws, here:http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdfSo here is a clear question: do you think that the NRA’s broadly defined Second Amendment (which is not historically based) is worth shooting 22 Americans for every one protected? Now: if there is a way to reduce that ratio, to reduce the 22 while NOT reducing the one protected, which should be entirely practical, is there any way in good conscience you can refuse?