Guns are useful for defending yourself from a home invasion

[Kelvin Mace]

66. Yes, home invasions can result in rape and murder,

but how often does that happen? And again, if there is a firearm in the house and it is stored safely from children (locked up, not security by obscurity) it will be useless in the event of a home invasion. If it is not stored safely, then it becomes a danger to the home's occupants. Tens of thousands of people are "accidentally" shot every year handling firearms, I don't think there are tens of thousands of rapes/murders due to home invasion.

Statistically speaking, I am far more likely to die in an auto accident or a fall at home, than a home invasion. My three dogs are not going to "accidentally discharge" while I am cleaning them. I won't shoot myself during a fit of depression with my deadbolts or re-enforced doors.

Now, if you want to keep a gun in your house, that is your right, under current law. However, just as there are limits on every other right we have, I see no reason that limits may not be placed on gun possession. There is no logical reason not to limit the number, types, or types of ammunition. A single shotgun or .357 magnum will allow you to fend off the scary "home invaders", so there is no reason to have an arsenal of dozens of weapons. There is no reason some people should not be prohibited from legally owning firearms, such as people convicted of violent crimes, mentally ill people, or people who have demonstrated an inability to possess a firearm responsibly (like folk who allow children to get hold of them, or who "accidentally" shoot themselves or others).

There is no reason that firearms should not be taxed, registered, chipped, or have palm-readers to prevent accidents or unauthorized use.

You are arguing the need to possess a firearm from a position of fear, never a good place to be when handling a dangerous weapon.