I was a little surprised to see such strong arguments in favour of firearms, mostly because I've not met many people who hold said views. I've been brought up a pacifist which affects my views, and I live in the UK where gun related crime is a lot lower than in the US and gun control is much tighter.
As it stands, I do not feel threatened by firearms, because I know that their use is well-regulated. I know that if someone were to attempt to burgle my flat or house, or attempt to mug me, that they are unlikely to have a gun. Furthermore, I don't feel that in these situations having a firearm would make me any safer, concealed carry or not. In fact, the only time I can see a firearm being particularly useful is if the aggressor is already intending to kill me, for obvious reasons. If they are going to attempt to kill me anyway then the best course of action is to prevent this which could involve lethal force, and if I want to employ lethal force then a gun is a good tool to have.
The other, much more likely scenario, is that the aggressor is aiming for something else: my possessions or my money. If someone is threatening lethal force to acquire these (and if they are not then why exactly are you proposing lethal force to stop them?) then the best thing for both parties is for you to defuse the situation. Of course, this may not always be possible.
Say, for ease of argument, that someone is mugging you in an attempt to steal your wallet. They have a knife and are willing to use it. There is a scale of possible outcomes, from best to worse:
a) The wallet is not taken because...
i) You convince the mugger to leave without your wallet, no-one is harmed.
ii) The mugger is subdued or apprehended without being killed.
b) The mugger leaves with your wallet, no-one is harmed.
c) The mugger is incapacitated or killed.
d) The person being mugged is incapacitated or killed.
The default situation is b), in that if you do nothing and comply the worst that will happen is you lose your wallet. It may not be possible to defuse the situation and achieve result a)i) without a firearm or some other threat and someone weak or with a disability would not be able to reach a)ii) without the aid of a taser or a policeman.
Drawing or claiming you have a firearm will do one of three things. Firstly, it could convince the mugger to leave, as in a)i). Here we've got the best outcome. Alternatively it could be used to kill of incapacitate the mugger. This involves a tragic and unnecessary loss of life but at least it's not you. Finally, it could convince the mugger that the best thing to do is kill you. After all, the mugger always had the capacity to kill you, he just didn't consider you enough of a threat to do so.
To me, the risk of c) or d) is not worth taking. I don't believe in the death penalty and I most certainly don't believe I have the right to decide whether or not someone about whom I know nothing should live or die.
Now, obviously it gets more difficult the closer the aggressor is to using lethal force at the start of the encounter. In the UK, partly because guns are rare and partly for cultural reasons, I don't think the likelihood of the aggressor initially intending to use lethal force is high enough to warrant allowing people to carry guns. However, in the US it may be the case that the culture of gun availability makes it more likely for aggressors to be willing to use lethal force. Certainly if I wanted to mug someone but knew they would be carrying a gun I would be more likely to bring a gun myself and it would take less to convince me to kill them.
Therefore, I think that introducing any kind of gun control at this point would have exactly the wrong effect. It would have no effect on the muggers and robbers who would still have firearms and would still be in the mindset of a gun culture but the law-abiding citizens would not be able to react appropriately.
I think it's also important to recognise the huge cultural differences between the UK and the US. What works for the UK, strict gun control and a low level of gun crime, could well not work in the US. Trying to impose our values on another culture leads to serious problems. As it is, however, I would rather live in a country with strict gun control laws. I think everyone would be safer if the same thing was the case in the US but as it is I am quite content to simply not live there.
TL;DR: In the UK possession of a firearm is more likely to elevate an otherwise non-lethal situation to violence than it is to defuse it, therefore gun control in the UK works. This may not hold true in the US due to cultural differences.
Finally, I take issue with this statement, in that it is true but utterly irrelevant:
This of course would entail the punishment of thousands of Americans who are completely law abiding and upstanding citizens in every other respect but refuse to give up their guns.
Of course it would. Banning murder would entail the punishment of thousands of Americans who are completely law abiding and upstanding citizens in every other respect but continue to murder people, too, but that doesn't mean murder is a good thing or that we shouldn't ban it.