I am currently considering very seriously wether or not I am a pacifist (a luxury I am thankful to have), but I certainly doubt that I will ever own a gun. That being said, I strongly believe that others have the right to own guns if they so choose. I realize the main argument for this has been used to death, but it just makes sense: the criminals will have whatever weapons they want, and gun regulation will take guns mainly from law-abiding citizens.

This one is simple, you'll go and get a gun (or kill someone who have one) as soon as your ass will be in serious real trouble. So, argument is that criminals are not much different from other people. And everyone at some moment can become the guy who makes things that even criminals could hardly do.

Like I said, I am considering. It is certainly not something that is easily determinable or definable. But I do seriously wrestle with the thought of taking another person's life in order to save mine. In such a situation, would I WANT to? Of course, wouldn't we all? Perhaps it would even be completely justified. But does that make it right? Who am I to make that kind of decision . . . that another human being ought to die instead of me? All this is hypothetical, which is what makes it so difficult to sort out. I'm much more of an in-the-present-moment type of person.

It is not about your consideration. It is about behaviour and biology. Scared, hungry pacifist in severe danger to his life is much worse than serial killer in his normal calm state. So, go and get a gun and better two. Learn how to use them. Learn how to survive and feed family in tough situations. And after this become real pacifist.

Oh, I see, Vitaliy, yes sir, you're right, of course you're right.

Thanks for sarcasm. But here it is not discussion about who is right or not, as such thing is pointless.