I listened to the whole thing. Her last point is basically "let me have a bigger gun than all the bad guys." What kind of juvenile logic is that? I know it's trite to use the "well why not nuclear weapons" line, but... why not nuclear weapons? There's always going to be someone out there with a bigger gun than you. Anything we do to let you increase your odds of killing him before he kills you will also increase the odds that you kill someone else (or many someone elses) whether intentionally or not.

The "second amendment" debate is really over at the federal level. The NRA won. The assault weapons ban is gone and won't come back. All that gun control proponents want at this point is to allow municipalities to decide how to apply and enforce the laws that are on the books, but the NRA strongly opposes those efforts with all of its might.

So, we end up writing our gun laws for rural counties and having to apply those lax laws in urban settings where the ramifications of those laws are very different. The results are shown quite vividly in these two news segments from the Homewood section of Pittsburgh, PA:

City guns versus country guns

Entire neighborhood a victim of gun violence

I think we can give Ms. Gratia-Hupp her firearm for self defense and still try to stem the tide of illegal guns flowing toward our inner cities, but not as long as the NRA is writing our gun laws.