Most people who are for banning weapons tend to conveniently forget one simple truth. If a criminal is willing to commit robbery, murder, or any other crime - then they surely don't care about the penalty for carrying said weapon while committing the greater offense.

Anti-gun and anti-knife laws do nothing more than assure that only criminals will possess guns and knives. And gun-free zones accomplish the same thing. Every time I hear of yet another shooting in a "Gun-Free Zone", it's always a situation where at least one of the victims could have defended themselves if they were armed. How well did the signs labeling the area a "Gun-Free Zone" work to keep the armed criminal from shooting innocent civilians?

Look at the crime statistics from the US from years ago. In an era where everyone was armed, crime levels were amazingly low. In the wild west days, if a bank got robbed, it was big news, like Billy-the-Kid type news. Today, thousands of bank robberies happen every month. People used to know that if you stole someone's horse, you'd get shot dead for it.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein