I am not sure where you got anyone saying you can talk or work your way out of a confrontation with an armed person. I know for certain I didn't say that, as that would be stupid. That works only if the criminal has a conscience or is not too far into what he is doing.
I was saying how it is much easier to defend oneself when the attacker has a melee weapons as it requires them to be close. I didn't say that it will be easy to fight them off, just easier than a person shooting at you then running off.
As for you comparing alcohol to gun trafficking; it is quite irrelevent. I still stand by that guns are more complex to design. If someone has the money, equipment and knowledge to design a gun for themselves, they shouldn't need to do criminal work. Like I said earlier, alchohol is too broad and virtually anyone can get their hands on some beer/wine/liquor even when it is illegal.
Controlling chemical substances is much more difficult than regulating how many people are able to obtain firearms.
I built a AK series rifle in my garage for sh£ts and giggles. It was a Yugoslavian M90A Underfolder chambered in 5.56x45mm. Took me a total of thee hours. Had it up and running and sold it for $700 to fund another project. Total investment in the gun was under $300. I can build a single shot rifle or shotgun with twenty dollars worth of parts from Home Depot. A firearm is not rocket science and the majority of design out on the market are updated designs from the turn of the century. The only difference is simply the material currently used. A Browning Tilt Barrel is a Browning Tilt Barrel just like a duck is a duck no matter what color you paint the damn duck in.
As for the banning of firearms. It has been done. Washington DC and Chicago had a total ban on the ownership of firearms for the last 30 years. Their crime rate sky rocketed within those last 30 years while the rest of the nation dropped. Washington DC was not known as the Nation's Murder Capital for nothing. It was illegal for someone to be in possession of a firearm; yet criminals were contently arrested with firearms. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE CRIMINALS! THEY BREAK THE LAW! Same with Chicago and other anti-gun locations in the USA.
The moment the US Supreme Court told Washingotn DC that it's total ban was unconstitutional and allowed the legal ownership of firearms in Washington DC, the crime rate dropped by thirty percent. Those numbers don't just happen because criminals suddenly develop a heart and stop robbing and assaulting people. It happens because they suddenly go "Uh oh, the guy I might rob might shoot me. I'll go somewhere else."
Machines Guns have been legally registered with the Federal Government since 1934. Under the National Firearms Act (the law that governs machine guns); you must send off a form the the federal government, pay a $200 tax, and have a background check done on you before, and wait until you get government permission to take possession of the firearm. There are over 500,000 legally transferable machine guns on the US market right now. Guess how many legally owned machine guns have been used in the commission of crimes.
Two. Yes, that's right.... TWO!
One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison.
As for the dreaded .50 Caliber sniper rifles. The ones that California, NY, and NJ banned. None have been used in the commission of a crime. NONE!
Now if that's the case, why do certain locals claim that they are the main weapon of criminals? Why is it that the Clinton Era Assault Weapon Ban failed? Because of the weapons that were banned under that law, less then 1% of the guns used in crimes were the weapons that were banned. AR-15s, AK-47s, etc..... all of the dreaded Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles and pistols! OH NO! Yup.... according to a ten year study by the FBI, less then 1% of the banned weapons were used in crimes. Now, remember folks. These weapons were still out on the market. Either they were preban weapons or they were made for LEO/GOV/MIL purchase only. But they weren't used because they were banned. They weren't used becuase criminals likes little tiny cheap compact pistols.
Not rifles, not GLOCK pistols, not S&W revolvers. But little tiny cheap .25ACP caliber pistols. Guns that cost less then $100 new. The reason why? Because they're criminals. They use guns as tools and throw them away and ditch them when they need to because they are usually convicted felons and under Federal and State law, convicted felons can't own firearms because they're convicted felons. What's a convicted felon? Someone that has been found guiltily of a crime in which the punishment results in 366 days or more in prison. Bank fraud, murder, rape, domestic violence, robbery, mugging, car jacking, cocaine poss. or sale, child molestation, etc... those are all felony crimes. Usually your average criminal is a convicted felon because they break the law more then once and yet they still manage to get guns in banned areas and continue to break the law with their possession and continue to commit crime with them. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE CRIMINALS! CRIMINALS BREAK THE LAW!
Look at England, a nation in which has pretty much outlawed the majority of firearms. A nation in which you need to jump through so many hoops to simply get a simply single shot shotgun for bird hunting. A nation in which it is a island with no land borders to other nations with less restrictive gun laws. They have had a staggering rise in crime; violent crime to be exact. Crimes commited with firearms. Yet there have been numerous government bans and confiscations for the law abiding subjects (they're not citizens because they are disarmed, but that is another issue) and yet criminals still get their dirty little paws on guns. They're not easily being imported across a land border. They aren't being air dropped by allied powers that support the criminals like the UK did back in WWII to the French Underground. They're are there because criminals never registered their guns and never allowed the government to turn get them. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS! THEY BREAK LAWS!
Canada, England, and Australia have shown the USA two things.
1. Bans don't work and registration leads to confiscation.
2. Criminals still get them and they still break the law.
So in the end, why should the law abiding citizenry be restricted in ownership of firearms? If laws only restrict the law abiding then what is the point of restricting them to their choice of self defense when criminals will break the law anyways. Why make something illegal for no reason?
As for the 1st Amendment argument. Yes, I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater for no reason. The logic behind that is that I am endangering the public through the creation of mass panic. That is a legal restriction because my rights end at your door step. My rights do not include ending your rights nor possibly endangering you.
I can how ever walk down the sidewalk and claim that aliens abducted me and forced me to destroy the World Trade Center with my mind. Just as you have the right to not listen to me or have an opinion that I'm an idiot.
I should have the right to have the means to protect myself. A firearm gives me those means. I'm not talking about a nuclear device, chemical weapons, or even a grenade. I'm talking about the right to own and carry a pistol for my self defense and the defense of my loved one.
The 2nd Amendment is regulated just like the 1st Amendment. But under Constitutional Law, it must be the minimalist regulation and it must have a damn good reason like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Simply restricting it because you feel that it isn't need doesn't fall under those reasons.