Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

Then government, given its track record of being responsible, being effective and not abusing power should be the last organization for you to turn to for enforcing responsible gun ownership.

Is that really true, though? The US has a large military, but it pales in comparison to the number of armed civilians. Just look at the number of hunters in this country. In Wisconsin alone there are 600,000 hunters. That would make them the ninth-largest army in the world. There are more hunters in just the four states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia than there are in the entire U.S. military.

Obviously the U.S. army has far more firepower than a group of hunters. But even a much, much smaller band of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan has been able to create substantial problems for the U.S. in its own in guerrilla warfare against the U.S. military. Is it really so implausible that a group orders of magnitude larger would not be able to stand a chance?

(Keep in mind, too, that if there ever were to be a serious rebellion in the U.S. you'd probably have a lot of desertion from the U.S. military. In fact, some of them might even bring some of that firepower to the other side.)

From my perspective, a key point to realize in the discussion, is that there are two major underlying cultural trends in America going on right now. One of these trends tend to relegate all power of violence to the State (as noted in your own statement regarding police), and one of these trends tends to follow a historical American position to balance the power of violence between the State and the People such that neither side may have a monopoly.

Those who wish the State to have a monopoly of violence point to mass-shootings and homicides as their examples. (From Columbine, to Chicago, to Newtown)

Those who wish to maintain the historical balance of violence point to egregious abuses of power by the entities of the State. (From the Ludlow Massacre, to Kent State, to Rodney King, Oscar Grant in San Francisco, and Robbie Tolan here in my city, to name a very few such incidents.)

So, to understand the reason why so many people feel the need to have guns, you have to understand that a large cultural trend in the U.S. is to be wary of actors of the State, and to be cautious of the level of power given solely to them. It's not about gun lobbies - gun lobbies are often more about the commercial side of guns, who can sell them, what can be sold, where can they be sold, how, etc.

It's important to not dismiss either side's position fully in the conversation - for if one cannot form an understanding in the mind of what the other party bases their beliefs on, you'll hit brick walls with each other nearly instantly.

Those who wish to relegate the power of violence fully to the State do rightfully fear other citizens' intentions, do rightfully believe that there is a possibility of a peaceful society where no citizen is armed.

Those who wish to maintain a balance of violence do rightfully fear the creation of separate classes of citizens who are given greater power than the average citizen to resolve conflict to their desire. They do rightfully believe that their analysis of history shows that monopolies of violence tend to result in forceful application of will from those classes to the common man.

There are outliers in both groups, there are those among the Statists that would happily create violence to show why people should not have guns (e.g. Christopher Dorner), and there are those among the Libertarians who would give up many rights to satisfy a sense of peace.

As for a particularly interesting read from someone who supports a balance of power, and their justification of it, check out: http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-...

As for how easy it is to get a gun? It depends on what state you live in, and what your background looks like. In my state, with a clean criminal record, and a perfectly reasonable behavior, you can typically walk in with money and out with a pistol or rifle in about 30 minutes.

We are talking about MIT, not my home.

I am well aware of bump keys, and how easy it is to bypass locks. That's what the whole scandal is. Companies are guaranteeing their locks are good for a certain amount of time, and their locks do not live up to their guarantees. But again, we are not talking about my home.

I would also love to hear figures on how many mass murderers carry bump keys on them? How many shootings do you recall where a gunman gained access using a bump key, or otherwise picked a lock?

Again, the lock is a deterrent.

There's plenty of discussion of the roles of locked doors in these sorts of situations. here's one: http://www.npr.org/2013/02/15/172130144/would-more-secure-do...

That's all well and good, except no gun you have is going to make a difference. If you're worried about a tyrannical government, you better start investing in drones, nukes, tanks, etc. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself thinking you stand a chance.

All you have to do is look around at other countries where they don't love their guns. In Canada, a gun is like a hammer, or any tool for that matter. If you start worshipping a tool, polishing it, in hopes of being the lone ranger, you have some problems.

Give teachers/everyone guns! – by far the most ridiculous notion, as if the already burdened education system would be able to deal with another cost.

"Lock up the guns for safety" seems to be another point that makes no sense when you start to analyze real life scenarios. How exactly do you get to a gun in time when someone is firing off rounds in seconds? And the idea that a teacher or even police officer is immune to mental illness is an abhorrent disconnection with reality.

The 2nd amendment is just that – an amendment. Crafted in a time where AK-47s and AR-15s didn't exist. Under the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, people have convinced themselves they are entitled to fit their family with military weapons. Something other gun-free societies just can't understand.