Second, again irregardless of the above, people have a natural right to self-defense. The biggest non-criminal purpose for firearms is not hunting or collecting, but self-defense/protection (which includes the defense of loved ones/family and friends and employers). The right of self-defense is an inherent right that is codified in the US Constitution, but even if it was not there it doesn't mean it wouldn't exist as a right. John Locke and Montesquieu discussed this right before the American Constitution existed as something that is natural to all living beings. If an animal is attacked by another, that animal is within its rights to defend itself. Humans have a right to defend themselves against criminals who want to harm them. Criminal by choice choose to ignore the law so are able to carry any weapon they want for the purpose of threatening or harming others. Why shouldn't the victim of the criminal be able to fight back with equal or greater force? By banning guns you take away that right UNLESS you take away all the firearms from the criminals first. Please tell me how that is even possible.