You might enjoy an alias I used in the past....Squid Licker Ch*de.  It makes some people laugh and others lock their door.  

Visteo, while also ambiguous, usually ellicits a positive connotation in peoples minds.

The family murdered on the third floor were without effective means of defense.  Waiting for police proved fatal.

Ditto goes for Newtown.  Like Israeli schools with armed staff, the tragedy at Newton may well have been lessened if the truly brave staff that gave their lives trying to stop the shooter had effective defensive tools.  Waiting for police proved fatal.

an abusive spouse won't reform for lack of a gun. Use a gun and they go to jail, smack someone around and nobody knows anything happened.

No one said it would.  OTOH, if they "use a gun", there's a good chance their spouse will be dead or seriously injured, whether or not they go to jail (which could happen whether they use a gun or "smack someone around").

Best way I know to reduce unintended harm from guns is to donate to the NRA and promote taking classes in gun safety. Many lives would be saved if schools included mandatory gun safety classes.

Imagining something doesn't mean that you "know" it.  Gun safety classes might reduce some of the @ 800 accidental gun deaths in the US, but they're not going to affect the 30,000+ intentional gun deaths or the 100,000+ intentional gun injuries every year.  I say "might" because several studies have shown that even kids who are trained not to touch guns ignore the most fundamental principal of the "Eddie Eagle" NRA program ("Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!" if the child ever sees a firearm lying around).  Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Now, I'd like you to lose the NRA cliché-induced hysteria for a bit, and really think about what I'm going to tell you, because as a former senior legislative analyst, I've actually studied this issue in detail and ad nauseum, and have thus become fairly well-versed in delivering the following counter-argument:

If you were to actually examine the empirical evidence, statistics and data on gun violence in the United States, courtesy of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and other primary local, state, federal and private sources, you'll find that from a historical perspective, the overwhelming number of gun violence victims in our country have tended to not be the result of having been massacred by soulless, homicidal sociopaths.

Rather, the data clearly shows that a decided majority of homicides -- and especially homicides in the home -- tend to be so-called "crimes of passion" which:

• Occur during altercations over such matters as personal relationships, money and other domestic problems; and

• More often than not, involve acquaintances, neighbors, lovers, and family members. (Further, the data also shows it's not uncommon at all for either the assailant or the victim -- or both -- to have been drinking prior to the fatal altercation.)

Further, people who own and carry guns on their persons are nearly four and one-half times more likely to be involved in an armed confrontation and get shot, than is someone who's unarmed. Also, those who live in households where firearms are present are about five times more likely to become a victim of gun violence, than those who reside in gun-free households.

And furthermore, while the number of deaths from firearms has actually been decreasing annually in this country since 2001, the number of people who've required hospitalization from gunshot wounds has actually increased by 47% during that same period.

What accounts for this apparent discrepancy between a decreasing death rate, and the corresponding increase in the number of people being shot during the same period of years?

From a medical standpoint, most firearms-related homicides are indistinguishable from nonfatal gun shootings. Survivability depends upon the caliber of the gun used in the shooting, whether a vital organ has been pierced or otherwise injured, and how much time passes before the victim receives medical treatment for his or her wounds.

And over the past decade, U.S. hospitals and local emergency paramedical services -- particularly in urban centers -- have gotten exponentially better at emergency trauma care for victims of gun violence, which in turn has resulted in increasingly more successful outcomes than in the past.

Now, given all that, please also consider the following:

(a) We already have over 310 million firearms registered in our country, which is approximately one weapon for every man, woman and child;

(b) Gun-possessing homes presently account for less than one-third of all American households; and

(c) 65% of all guns in the United States -- that's over 202 million -- are owned by only 20% of the U.S. population.

Therefore, taking all of the above into account, simple logic should lead the most reasonable amongst us to conclude that:

• In fact, more Americans are not becoming gun owners, but rather;

• The existing pool of U.S. gun owners is both buying and hoarding more firearms, and further, a not insignificant number of them are becoming increasingly prone to actually wield and use them, and further;

• While one is much more likely to be shot and killed by someone he or she knows, than by a random stranger, the silver lining in all this is that if you do happen to get shot, the odds of you being able to survive your wounds are over 10 times greater than they would have been only fifteen years ago, thanks to the tremendous medical advances in the delivery of emergency trauma care.