How many people agree that this argument is at the root of opposition to gun control in the US?

The United States was born in blood and violence. It grew to enormous size in part through blood and violence. ... It has often used blood and violence to handle disputes with other nations, as well as disputes with ...portions of its own population. And it has a long history of citizens using blood and violence... show more The United States was born in blood and violence. It grew to enormous size in part through blood and violence.
...
It has often used blood and violence to handle disputes with other nations, as well as disputes with ...portions of its own population. And it has a long history of citizens using blood and violence to resolve their conflicts.
...
"It is possible that no other factor has exercised a more brutalizing influence on the American character than the Indian wars.. The slaughter of defenseless women and children ... along with brutal warfare, continued to characterize the 'white' American's dealings with the Indian." ...
....
We are still too close to our blood-soaked past to entertain seriously the idea of giving up our guns ............................ Source : A handbook of Gun Control ......
Update: Argument 1 against the armed citizens theory - Are untrained citizens with deer rifles and 22s going to fight a highly trained and high tech military if it ever comes to that. That argument falls flat on its face? ...... Argument 2 against the second amendment - America is not a frontier nation anymore where each... show more Argument 1 against the armed citizens theory - Are untrained citizens with deer rifles and 22s going to fight a highly trained and high tech military if it ever comes to that. That argument falls flat on its face?
......
Argument 2 against the second amendment - America is not a frontier nation anymore where each male had to protect himself and family against Indian attacks. Civil law enforcement, the national military and agencies like Homeland Security have taken the task over for nearly a hundred years now. The need for individuals guns is past. The Second Amendment is past its utility.
......
Its just that if you're used to having a gun in your household that will be taken away from you, you will feel weak. People think that the moment they stop having guns, criminals are going to attack them. That concern needs to be addressed through having heightened internal security and law enforcement agencies, not through letting anyone buy guns.
Update 2: Thank you. ....... Mass paranoia.. Imagined situations. Let's come out of our shells, shall we? Countries around the world have reduced violent crime drastically this way. ..... The fact remains that the bulk of the criminal world is not organized gangsters but individuals born out of the same society... show more Thank you.
.......
Mass paranoia.. Imagined situations. Let's come out of our shells, shall we? Countries around the world have reduced violent crime drastically this way.
.....
The fact remains that the bulk of the criminal world is not organized gangsters but individuals born out of the same society (often the poorer and 'different' sections of society) as everyone else. Gun control means limiting general access to handguns in society, and that means limiting access to muggers. Individuals wouldn't be able to protect themselves when faced with a criminal with a gun, even if we have a gun ourselves.

Besides, American statistics have revealed that guns are used much, much more in suicides and domestic violence against acquaintances, relatives and ex-lovers than against actual criminals. More misused by fired employees and unstable, frustrated desperados like that one in Virginia Tech, rather than in self-defense.
9 answers 9