28M, white, above average income, white collar, low crime area. Father of one.
My thoughts and feelings on the Aurora massacre and gun control in the US have already been laid out by commenters much more cogently than I could ever manage, none more so than here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht
Speaking from a personal perspective, the reasons given for private firearms ownership generally seem to fall to 'self-defence' 'deterrent' or 'sport'.
If it's sport, the guns should stay at the club. If that's where the targets are, it follows that this is where the guns should be.
'Self-defence' isn't a valid reason as long as there are non-lethal alternatives that can be used without training. While knives, bats, frying pans and even a well-placed punch could fall into the 'lethal force' category, firearms rarely fall anywhere else unless you've had extensive training in how to use them in a high-pressure defensive situation. If, for example, I bought a handgun and ammunition today and was attacked later this evening, I have zero confidence that I would have the skill or presence of mind to secure a non-lethal incapacitating shot to my assailant. Most likely I would panic and fire at the torso or head, probably killing them.
The 'deterrent' reason seems to be the one you're going with, FamousAjax. In a country where gun ownership and gun crime are both extremely high I can understand the urge to want to level the playing field. As a father, I would want to know that I had the power to protect my family should the need arise.
However, I don't believe brandishing a gun is the best way to do this. 'Protection' may simply mean allowing the assailant to control the situation. I would rather let someone take all my stuff than risk the lives of myself or my family. If I pull out a gun in response then the attacker no longer holds the advantage. This reduces their choices to fight/flight. A reasonable person of sound mind might assess the risk involved and leave with their life. But we're talking about someone who bought a gun with the intention of committing a crime - chances are they're already fully prepared to pull that trigger, and you can guarantee they have less to lose than you do.
The exception to this is where you have a situation like we saw in Aurora. A guy buys rifles, handguns, kevlar protection and tear gas canisters with the intention of slaughtering a crowd of people. He's not interested in stealing their stuff or raping them, he just wants to murder on a massive scale. You might argue that this is a good reason to own and carry a gun, but it really isn't. You're not going to deter this person by pulling out your pistol. You'll most likely make yourself a target and have your life ended even faster.
Maybe you think that, in the midst of the chaos and bloodshed, you'll be able to stay cool, find a clear shot and take it, saving dozens of lives by neutralizing the threat. That's probably something like a one in a million chance. So essentially you purchased your gun for a massively unlikely event where the best case scenario is you killing someone. Doesn't seem like a great reason to me.