<i>be more rational&#x2F;scientific about this. Forget gut feelings, put down a spreadsheet</i><p>But that already presupposes the answer to one of the major arguments. There&#x27;s a fair philosophical case to be made for &quot;it doesn&#x27;t matter if the empirical net is positive or negative: the bottom line is that I have a natural right to defend myself and my family, even if other people cannot or choose not to do so themselves&quot;.<p>Sorry, I don&#x27;t mean to start the actual gun debate here. I&#x27;m just trying to show that the underlying question presents a false choice fallacy. It&#x27;s incorrect to simply ask, &quot;should the government make this regulation or not?&quot;. There&#x27;s space for a lot more nuance in there: &quot;is this a good idea or a bad idea? If it&#x27;s a good idea, is it something that should be part of the private sector&#x27;s purview? If not, can government do it effectively?&quot;