Many of those who object to Elder's position engage in the same sort of logical fallacy that most anti-gunners rely on. The fact there are sensible restrictions on the sort of explosives you can own is NOT relevant to the debate about letting private citizens carry defensive handguns. The fact that you can't own a nuclear bomb doesn't mean everyone who agrees with that logical policy is pro gun-control. An analogy--if you agree that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, you're for restrictions on free speech. No one really thinks that! What Elder is getting at is the simple fact that crime is only more likely to happen when law abiding citizens are prevented from carrying defensive weapons. Gun control punishes everyone and prevents wide swaths of people from carrying defensive weapons in a futile effort to keep a small percentage of the population from getting access to guns. Access that they get anyway, despite our best efforts. The bad guys are going to get guns whether we want them to or not; there's no benefit to society from preventing trained, licensed, law-abiding citizens from carrying defensive handguns. Every state that's allowed private citizens to defend themselves has seen crime go down, not up. As Elder proves, criminals certainly prefer you to be unarmed.