Disclaimer - Political View Expressed.

Yesterday 20 people were shot outside a grocery store in Arizona. The murderer intended to take down the congresswomen meeting local citizens, but shot 6 others in the process. One was a nine year old girl, who dreamed of becoming a politician, and was her local school's student body president. This is just one example of the depressing cases of insane individuals taking out their problems on the public with the help of a gun. Columbine, Virginia Tech, and University of Texas are all events that come to mind.
The second amendment states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", and we all know that many Americans feel strongly about their personal right to bear handguns. However, the phrasing of the second amendment leads me to believe that the amendment was meant for a time when state security was a real issue, and one that could be relieved by enlisting citizens to be a part of a state militia. In fact, (and he says it so much better) a Michael Busch of the St. John's Law Review wrote an extensive paper exploring whether the second amendment was meant collectively or individually. He talks about how the right to bear arms dates back to the early Greeks and Romans, when it was believed that to fight tyranny in the government, citizens must bear arms. This idea was later carried to England, who shipped it across the pacific ocean to America. But, in 2011, the novelty of, as an individual, being able to protect yourself from an oppressive government with a shotgun is ridiculous. Busch goes on to analyze the specific wording of the amendment, but that's just too sticky for me to deal with.
From what I can tell, anyone who is over a certain age, can obtain a license to get a gun. From an editorial of the New York Times: Once again, the court . . . imposed its selective reading of American history, citing the country’s violent separation from Britain and the battles over slavery as proof that the authors of the Constitution and its later amendments considered gun ownership a fundamental right. The court’s members ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally. Apparently 10,00 Americans died of handgun violence in the United States in the four months that the Supreme Court debated how to interpret the second amendment last year.
But why are people so attached to this right to bear guns? After reading Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell I presume this comes from pervasive cultural identity, which is just as stupid as the fact that our society is known for coming up with fast food, which we continue to embrace with ever growing rates of obesity. But the point is, both cases above aren't good for us.
Are there any cases where personally owning a gun has helped a law-abiding citizen protect themselves? My mind jumps to a criminal slipping in through a unlocked window in the night. But then, quite comically actually, I see a man fumbling for his favorite shotgun, clumsily threatening the burglar, who is probably a lot more experienced handling such weapons in the first place. The police seem to be a whole lot better at protecting the masses, (maybe because it's their job)than the ordinary citizen (no offense meant to anybody).
My standing position is that gun possession in modern day times never did any outstanding good for anybody (excepting the military, police, navy, ect, ect.)I agree that there are cases where individuals owning guns didn't hurt anybody, but the point that I'm trying to make is the harm FAR outweigh any good. Before anyone gets in a huff, and writes some "if words could kill" comment, remember that this is just more zoetic morosophy. ;)