Just as arguments about "rights" vs privileges respective to healthcare, education, abortion, unions, and other social issues are distorted when viewed through political/ideological and economic lenses, the same holds true for discourse about gun control. Pro- and anti-gun factions are both able to present data supporting their positions, subject to bias. The lack of objectivity compels individuals to examine how the issue aligns with both personal values and beliefs, as well as applicable laws. My position has shifted from anti-gun toward a moderate pro-gun stance based upon the fundamental need to protect oneself and one's family in a society where acts of extreme violence seem to becoming more prevalent. This premise, along with concerns about police response times to 911 emergencies (for example, Denver 911 response times increased from 11.4 to 14.3 minutes) would indicate that there is a window of time where a self-defense strategy becomes a necessity. A firearm is the last line of defense in this strategy, and restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens who follow the appropriate procedures and training to obtain and use firearms seems counter-intuitive to public safety. Faced with the reality that criminals will always be able to obtain firearms illegally, why should we restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves? One could also take the position that in the US, gun violence is a symptom rather than the fundamental cultural issue. Many look to Switzerland as a model for responsible practices. Finally, although many would discount it as fear-mongering, the increasing nationwide trend of militarization of police forces and civil security across the country may create future risks to democracy that resonates with the 2nd Amendment and arguably, represents the mindset of the US Constitution's framers in the wake of a revolution against tyranny.