I wasn't offended or defensive, just stating a philosophical point of view. Scroll/jump over to the legal forum here and find the thread I started on CCW and the 2nd amendment, it should answer part of your question.
Policy Science? Hmmm, okay.
From my point of view, gun control is a wrong focus, a bad focus, a blind focus. It does not focus on what the stated intent of gun control is - to reduce crime, and it hides some ulterior motives of some who promote gun control - disarmament of private civilians. Now if you really want to start your discussion from that point, then jump into the legal/political forum and start discussing. No anger or discomfort from me, just stating my view that if you want to talk gun control then you've already compromised on crime control and already made or accepted some concessions. Think about it before you reply, crime comes before gun control. With control you lose freedom and become subject to others judgement. Are you in control, or are you subjegating your choice and freedom?
The number of firearms a person owns has nothing whatsoever to do with what they intend to do with those firearms. If someone feels a need to control, they they have assumed guilty intent on the party they wish to control. Do you have a speed governor on your car or motorcycle? If not then why don't you drive 100mph? The same resoning that you use to answer the speeding question can be used in firearm regulations. Again, think about it.
As to why "they tend to buy another gun after that first self defense gun", well, that's a moot question and has nothing to do with nothing except a predetermined need to control as dictated by someone who wants to be in control of another person. (I think that sentence sort of makes sense.
)
I take you back to my original reply, why do you need more than one fork? My question is not so rediculous. (Even though my spelling may be atrocious.)
If you are trying to argue against gun control, then you have already lost the debate by implying existing law is not sufficient to control criminals or criminal intent. The only way to be crime free is via totalitarian control, and yet even within a prison system governed by totalitarian control of the inmates there is still crime between inmates, still murders, still theft, still rape, still assault. If you want total freedom from crime, then first make a prison crime-free, and then see if you would want to live by those guidelines in your personal life.
Freedom has risk. I do not have criminal intent, therefore the number or types of firearms I may or may not own is totally irrelevant.
And note, this is not typed in anger. I just do not like defending an encroached border. If you want to argue your argument, perhaps you should redefine your borders from that of a gun owner, and toward that of a free man or woman who does not have criminal intent. Gun ownership is irrelevant when arguing gun control. CONTROL is the real argument, how much and by whom.
Think about it.