>>Isn't carrying a gun, fighting fire with fire. Wouldn't it be better to stop gun crime my reducing the number of guns on the streets, than increasing them?<<

Er, no. To add to the points that Ed already made....

It might be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't, and never has.

By not carrying a gun (your choice, of course), you're reducing the number of armed decent people out there by one.

You have considerably less to fear from armed, decent people than you have to fear from decent people with automobiles. The automobiles have more potential for mayhem by far.

When somebody shoots you, it's unlikely to be the first time they've done that, and unlikely to be the last. They do it because it works, it gets them whatever it is that they want (and some of the possibilities for what that might be don't bear thinking about). That person will very likely keep doing it, more killings that you might have prevented had you been willing, until they are stopped, almost certainly by someone with a gun. If it's not a decent, armed civilian (unfortunately, probably not), then it will go on until a policeman, paid by your taxes to do the dirty work you don't want to do for yourself, does it for you. Too late then for you, maybe too late for others.

The people who cry out to "reduce the number of guns on the street" intend that this would be done by more men armed with guns- how else? If that succeeds, and crime inevitably increases (criminals prefer unarmed victims), they demand more, and then still more police to "protect" them- still more men with guns.

How is hiring people to carry guns to do it for you, ethically superior to protecting yourself?