They make me feel safer, and thats all that matters to me.

Cops is really different than civilians, cops are the public force, they are trained and its their job to protect us, they have to have power(guns) to do that.

The goverment has to have power to prevent the law from being broken, thats why they(in this case police force and military) can use guns to do so.

Now, I dont see a reason to have guns being a civilian in a non violent society, I think that if you live in a place where police cant stop delinquency and many people have guns, who you arent sure if they are mentally stable, then I see a reason to get one to protect yourself. So I guess it depends on the country you live in.

When people feel insecure of their authorities to a point when they have to protect their rights themselves and return to an animal-like society,then you can tell you have a problem with the goverment and public forces.

But, getting more simple, I prefer to walk on a street where I know people dont have guns because they arent suposed to wear them, and if someone has one its because he is breaking the law and should be arrested, rather than a street where most people have a gun and even if some of them are normal and responsible.

Easy access to guns makes crazy people kill a lot more than if they didnt have them,  people that should not be permited to have guns can get them easily making cities more dangerous.

You need a safe country with very little gun crime before that step can be taken. But yes, in some societies police are more effective without weapons.

This is what the NZ police commissioner has to say on the issue.

http://www.police.govt.nz/blog/2009/07/02/police-routinely-unarmed-my-watch/15516

I have a paintball gun and a pellet gun. Do those count?

Not quite the guns we are talking about but I am sure if you tried to defend yourself with them against someone with a real gun, you would probably get shot. 

They look like guns so yes he would Definetly get shot first.

I dunno. I'd have to guess that people who own guns generally live in more dangerous areas of Philadelphia.

You know.  Just a theory.

Guns in your home make you safer, especially if you have an early warning of an instrusion.  On the streets however, if someone pulls a gun on you, having a gun in around your waist or in your glove compartment wont do you much good.  Clearly the criminal has the upper hand in these situations. 

When someone approaches you and draws a gun, reaching for your gun while a gun is pointed at you is not a good decision.

And yet... studies other then this one (which do exist) don't bear that out.

There have been two conflicting studies on the matter... however the one that says guns don't prevent violence are ones that require you be shot or hit before they consider it "warding off an attack."

The important things with studies like these is to narrow it down to shootings in particular areas.  Smaller then even just a city.

Its the first study of its kind (epidemiology), not the first study on guns and safety.  That is bad journalism on the authors part, however, as there isnt much use to mention this other than as an attention getter, and I can see how it could be very misleading.  Thats assuming that the author is correct in the first place.

I would like to see numbers from other studies if you have them.  Please do a better job than the Jesus/Obama thread :)