...and if a criminal comes at you with a "weapon of attack". what do you do then?
Barring the law abiding from owning anything, does not limit the ability of criminals from obtaining that which is barred.
"Imagine a world where no one is defenseless." -Me
"An armed society is a polite society." -Robert Heinlein
I would die, the same way 50 innocent souls died in Las Vegas. The societies with the most deaths by firearms are the ones with more firearms per inhabitant.
Meh, I don't care.
The right to self defense is free or it's not, the appeals to emotion and popularity, and appeal from authority notwithstanding.
This information is readily available for many countries, but here is a sample comparing two countries' violent crime rates, including the stats on the much feared and reviled guns.
source
This ruse that 'less guns equals less violence' has been well and truly refuted time and again. More guns does indeed equal more GUN violence, but it also decreases other violent crimes by allowing the law abiding to protect themselves against criminals who will use knives, clubs, broken bottles, rocks, et cetera . It also decreases other violence, as the weak can protect themselves against those who do not abide by the laws.
I don't approve of these posts, but I would never let the 'consensus' define what my natural rights are.
The majority of any consensus are ignorant and mostly unintelligent. If I let the 'consensus' define my natural rights, or how I defend myself and my rights, I would already be dead.
Unfollowed.