Sure. They could be. But there are plenty of crimes that still happen without any guns being involved.

The argument doesn't break down though. You're saying that despite the most dangerous criminals being able to obtain guns, that doesn't justify allowing law abiding citizens to have guns. How is that so? For what reason do you justify prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning guns, knowing full well that there are criminals out there who have them? You are limiting the ability of a person to protect themselves.

I'm guessing that you're thinking, it's probably not likely that you'll ever encounter a mafia member with a gun, so there's really no reason for you to have one. But what if I did? Then I'm out a gun, and I'm completely at their mercy. When I argue for allowing people to have guns, I don't expect the vast majority to need to use them. But I would rather have one if I needed it, than not have one just because you don't think that it's necessary.

Here is my problem. By restricting gun ownership, you are removing somewhat easier access for criminals. You are also prohibiting the vast majority of people who would not commit a crime from owning one. Worse yet, you are removing their ability to protect themselves from criminals that you acknowledge will still have access to guns. You are ensuring that only criminals own guns. I do not understand why that is a good idea.

In a world without guns, lots of things could happen. But we do have guns in the world. I fail to see how prohibiting the people least likely to commit a crime from owning guns is in any way a good idea.

You realize a LOT of people do go through safety lessons for guns, right?  I took a several week long class in order to be able to get a hunting permit.

I read that he bought the guns legally from a Bass Pro Shop. I didn't even know they sold guns.

A criminal is breaking the law.  You really think he cares that it is illegal to own a gun?  They will own one regardless of the law.

I'll end with this statement because arguing with liberals on a video game forum is useless.

You may never need a gun (and hopefully you don't), but when you need one, you need it BADLY

While I agree with you, rifles and shotguns can be just as deadly.  Even a small gun such as my semi auto .22 that I use for small game has a 25 round clip that can easily shoot >1 bullet per second.

Not directed at me but definitely a loud gun. With a knife he can kill everybody silently and quickly.

What ifs tend to be rather slippery. Organized crime tends to be fairly benign about gun violence, unless they're waging a war of their own like in Mexico currently, their victims tend to be one another, or police or such. It's not like street gangs, who would be less able on the matters of acquisition, but more likely to use the guns in petty disputes. While it would not be perfect, I would say it would be preferable to the status quo.

So therefore we should do nothing to attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns. This is the best logic ever. Why are heavy explosives illegal? All that does is prevent good, law-abiding citizens from getting heavy explosives to defend themselves with, while criminals still have heavy explosives because apparently illegal things are ridiculously easy to obtain.

Just because any Joe Shmoe can get his hands on a blunt doesn't mean guns would be equally obtainable if they were illegal.

And you may never stare down a barrel and think, "I wish that person didn't have a gun," but if you ever do, you will wish it BADLY.