The country obviously suffers from violent crime (the aforementioned open gash), and you did put a cap on crime temporarily with allowing people to carry guns (or bandages), but the country is just going to die from the inside from escalation and even higher levels of crime (the infection).
And how the hell do you intend to remove the infection? Besides, why can't guns be an anti-septic bandage 
.
Guns would be the equivalent of radiation therapy, not antibiotics. "Let's hope it kills the problem before it kills you."
Yes, it will, or rather, has the capacity to. Gun laws precisely are the reason that it doesn't at this moment.
Okay, by that logic you're basically saying that people should have access to M-134's, Javelin anti-tank missiles, mortars and artillery. The point is that in order for the average citizen to effectively counter any invading force they'd need much more firepower than a hunting rifle or handgun could provide. And if military weapons were freely available to the public, much more destruction could be wrought by violent or unstable people. Seeing as we have the strongest military in the world, it is a moot point. People
do not need to defend themselves from such an invasion, reducing this argument's potential benefit to the general populace. It would do more harm than good to give people unrestricted access to weapons that powerful when our nation is so secure.
In the few seconds it would take for you to raise the gun to a ready position and load (assuming you're being safe and carrying it unarmed), the opposing weapon would already be fired, and the bullet passing through your skull.
Only if the poor bloody idiot just stands there and brings his gun up. Besides, a gun can be loaded and still safe, as long as there is no bullet in the chamber. Going for speed, I can have a Walther .380 PPKS jacked and aimed in less than two seconds.
Even then, the cocking and unsafing of the weapon will give the perpetrator more than enough time to fire. It only takes a fraction of a second for the trigger to operate, much less time than chambering a round and unsafing the weapon. Forgive me if my firearm terminology is a wee bit lax.
The best logical response is to commit crimes in pairs or packs, with someone to watch your back while you fulfill your immoral and barbaric desires
The best 'logical' response in occasions like this is to not commit crimes at all. I will give you that it will 'protect' the first one.
You are of course assuming that people will follow the same logic that we do, which in many cases is limited by our circumstances. People are not the same and can make decisions that seem logical to them but are illogical to others. As such, if crime is their only remaining mode of income or survival, they will not be weaned from it so easily. Many criminals already live and operate in environments where they have acclimated to the possibility of gun violence and as such will not be averse to continuing illegal activities.
and calling people cowards for not siding with the "more guns means less crime" argument is arrogant.
And vice versa. Calling someone a coward for using firearms is arrogant as well.
I am not calling people cowards for using firearms. I am simply noting that in order to want a firearm for self defense a person must feel threatened, but feeling threatened does not equate to cowardice.
What of martial artists capable of defending themselves without resorting to firearms?
What of them? At 20 feet, a criminal has time to fire two shots before anyone could get to him. Makes martial arts pretty useless pretty fast.
But enter the realm of CQB, which is where a lot of crime occurs unless it's an assassination, they retain their effectiveness. Not all criminals are perfect gunmen or combatants and may give a martial-arts trained person their chance to strike. All modes of personal defense have their uses. The problem I have with the argument is that it advertises guns as the "cure all," without recognizing that they can be impractical.
Firearms are not the answer to every problem
Conversely, there are also not never an answer.
I never said they didn't have their uses. I'm merely remarking on the one-sided approach this article is taking to the subject.
It makes you foolish for thinking you can deal with anything that is thrown at you.
A gun is a tool. By the same reasoning, carrying a hammer makes you foolish for thinking you can construct anything. A gun makes no one foolish. Granted, lots of people would be, but only if they carry and will try to use guns without proper training.
The purpose of this statement is to show the one-sided approach of the article's argument. It never concedes that these problems can be solved in other, less violent manners. It advocates firearms as
the solution to crime, without recognizing that firearms can be highly impractical in many situations, and is akin to assuming that a hammer can build anything. I am not saying that all people who carry firearms are foolish. I am remarking on the foolishness of the argument.
And that can been seen as the cowardice I mentioned before and weak-mindedness.
Different things to different people. You continue to indirectly call me a coward, whether you realize it or not.
In discussions such as this participants should avoid making the arguments personal or taking statements as an insult unless they are blatantly intended to be so. Making these assumptions can quickly make discussions unpleasant for all involved.
You continue to indirectly call me a coward, whether you realize it or not.
Or maybe I do realize it and I say how I feel. You clearly don't have enough confidence to go even a small portion of your life without a gun, apparently. You must have serious emotional trauma (of course I know on average that teenagers are much more likely to be emotionally out of control "unstable" or in other words "impulsive and lacking judgment" than older people since their brains are not fully developed and that is the same reason they are more likely to drive in a crazy fashion. I was reading about that being the cause of 16 year olds being the most dangerous drivers out there and my feeling and others feeling that they are too young to drive. Read this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-02-teens-cars-main-usat_x.htm) and I bet you are a gun fanatic who has posters of guns all around his room and maybe sleep hugging a gun like kids do with teddy bears in their arms and you have a smile with your eyes close. 
Thinking about it makes me smile. Do you have gun wallpaper too??? Does it say "shoot to kill" in red on the wall paper too? 
I think this fits you:
From a psychological standpoint, carrying a firearm means that you are more afraid--you feel threatened to the point of being willing to kill.
Oh sweet merciful crap I was too late.
